Lately i have been facing a lot of players that run plenty of transports. i am a BA player and i cant figure out a way to deal with them that works most of the time. I just dont seem to have enough points to take out the transports and the infantry. any ideas?

What kind of transports are you facing?

your blood angels... you should have NO shortage of melta weaponry in your assault squads.

failing that, you should have NO shortage of razorbacks / predators / dreadnoughts to pop the enemy armor.

So, generally speaking, transports are so cheap that you have to spend more points to take them down before they dump their cargo than they have to spend in taking transports. Plus, even if you destroy their transports, they can still sprint across the field at you, so you're really not slowing them down ALL that much.

As such, it's better to ignore the transports and assume that they'll make it to your lines and take stuff that's really good against what's INSIDE the transports, rather than wasting too many points taking down the transport itself (something that can easily be achieved with a couple of meltaguns once the transport gets close).

You're to hung up on cost-efficiency Ailaros. If nothing is capable of taking down transports without costing more than the transports, you just don't bother? That can quickly lead to several bad things:

Their lines are going to launch a coherent attack at your forces.

The enemy retains his mobility, allowing him to react better to your moves.

What when you're up against a shooty mech army that doesn't close with you, then what do you do?

Or what about that combat squad in a rhino that is on an objective on the last turn, far away from your meltagun?

Also, against IG, blowing up the chimera often means that the squad inside takes heavy casualites too.


You need some long range firepower capable of cracking open transports from afar, or some fast moving meltas. BA's have predators, baal predators, vindicators, land speeders, attack bikes and devastators that can all do this job very well. Most of them can also take on the stuff inside with some success. Relying on assault marines to crack transports doesn't really cut it IMO.

Autocannons are pretty reliable, but you can't take them :(

you never really want to assault a transport, it isn't a risk you want to take, and the guys inside can just get out and kick you around anyway.

As above, attack bikes are very nice for the points, if you need to squeeze more anti tank onto your army and run dreads, remember they can have built in meltaguns, magna grapplers, /and/ can assault the squad that disembarks from the transport if he wrecks or blows it.

Ailaros wrote:So, generally speaking, transports are so cheap that you have to spend more points to take them down before they dump their cargo than they have to spend in taking transports. Plus, even if you destroy their transports, they can still sprint across the field at you, so you're really not slowing them down ALL that much.

As such, it's better to ignore the transports and assume that they'll make it to your lines and take stuff that's really good against what's INSIDE the transports, rather than wasting too many points taking down the transport itself (something that can easily be achieved with a couple of meltaguns once the transport gets close).

When the transport gets close to your melta gun it has already achived what your opponent paid it to do. Correct me if Im wrong but you take dual HFs on your chimeras right?

Illumini wrote:You're to hung up on cost-efficiency Ailaros. If nothing is capable of taking down transports without costing more than the transports, you just don't bother?

Right. The thing is that most things that are okay against transports are crappy against other stuff (or should be shooting at other stuff), this means that you need to sacrifice from the rest of your list to pay a premium to stop their transports when they're still on their side of the board.

Given how cheap transports are, and how blowing them up doesn't eliminate the units inside, you're not getting a very good return on your rather considerable investment, relatively speaking.

Illumini wrote:Their lines are going to launch a coherent attack at your forces.

Blowing up their transports doesn't stop this. Furthermore, no army's scariest units take regular transports (they take drop pods, or outflank, or have wings, or take LR's, etc.)

Illumini wrote:The enemy retains his mobility, allowing him to react better to your moves.

transport armies already have the initiative over footslogging armies. Taking their transports away after turn 1 doesn't really change this. Also, if you're running a mechanized army (or drop pods, or whatever), than it's all moot anyways.

Illumini wrote:What when you're up against a shooty mech army that doesn't close with you, then what do you do?

Or what about that combat squad in a rhino that is on an objective on the last turn, far away from your meltagun?

That depends on the game. Sometimes I'd blow it up with artillery, some times I'd charge in. The second point seems to assume that I'm not in control of my own movement and are thus incapable of putting meltaguns near objectives.

These points are both taken care of with movement with regards to the particular mission in the particular terrain. As such, any general advice or concern isn't really applicable.

Illumini wrote:You need some long range firepower capable of cracking open transports from afar

You really don't, though. Armies are perfectly capable of handling what comes out of transports when the cargo is nearby, and transports are generally quite easy to blow up at close range.

Grundz wrote:you never really want to assault a transport, it isn't a risk you want to take, and the guys inside can just get out and kick you around anyway.

Why don't you ever want to assault a transport? Meltabombs and krak grenades do wonders to AV10.

And yeah, I'm actually assuming that the guys get out and try to kick you around, which they will do anyways, unless you spend a ludicrous amount of points to just stop the transports. Instead, it's better to assume that they're going to hit your lines regardless of what you're doing to their tin cans, and focus on hitting them much harder than they hit you.

tedurur wrote:When the transport gets close to your melta gun it has already achived what your opponent paid it to do.

So?

This is true of lots of things, like drop pods bringing troops on the field, or scary units causing your opponent to focus way too much firepower on them, etc.

tedurur wrote:Correct me if Im wrong but you take dual HFs on your chimeras right?

I dont' run a mechanized list, myself, and thus don't bring any at all (although if I did, there would definitely be some flamers around). I fail to see what this has to do with stopping transports.

Ailaros wrote:

Illumini wrote:Their lines are going to launch a coherent attack at your forces.

Blowing up their transports doesn't stop this. Furthermore, no army's scariest units take regular transports (they take drop pods, or outflank, or have wings, or take LR's, etc.)

Of course it stops it. If you take out the berzerker rhino in turn 1, those berzerkers are not going to hit your lines in the same turn as the ones that still have a transport

Ailaros wrote:

Illumini wrote:The enemy retains his mobility, allowing him to react better to your moves.

transport armies already have the initiative over footslogging armies. Taking their transports away after turn 1 doesn't really change this. Also, if you're running a mechanized army (or drop pods, or whatever), than it's all moot anyways.

Of course it does. He just lost a lot of his mobility, some squads may be pinned, if you're fighting GEQ, they might even run away as the squad is shredded with S4 hits when you blow the transport up. If the objective is far away, he may not be able to reach it anymore, or be able to put special weapons where they are needed. Another example are mech-vets with meltas - a unit that has a 21" melta-range in a transport. Remove the chimera, and they're down to 12". You just drastically removed your opponents ability to react to your move.

If I didn't have the capability to take out transports, I would have lost the finals of the last tournament I entered, as four chimeras full of guys would have flamed and lasgunned my blob holding the objective to shreds. My opponent could also easily just have parked his 7 chimeras on the objectives and played pillbox.

Ailaros wrote:

Illumini wrote:What when you're up against a shooty mech army that doesn't close with you, then what do you do?

Or what about that combat squad in a rhino that is on an objective on the last turn, far away from your meltagun?

That depends on the game. Sometimes I'd blow it up with artillery, some times I'd charge in. The second point seems to assume that I'm not in control of my own movement and are thus incapable of putting meltaguns near objectives.

These points are both taken care of with movement with regards to the particular mission in the particular terrain. As such, any general advice or concern isn't really applicable.

And then you assume that your opponent is a poor general that can't anticipate your movements and stop them? You don't expect to have all your options open to you in the closing stages of the game? Putting meltaguns on your oppoents objective can be very hard even with transports

Ailaros wrote:

Illumini wrote:You need some long range firepower capable of cracking open transports from afar

You really don't, though. Armies are perfectly capable of handling what comes out of transports when the cargo is nearby, and transports are generally quite easy to blow up at close range.

You seem to think that all transports want to close range. Some transports are pillboxes, others are an extra layer of armour around a scoring unit. If my mech IG army played against your footarmy in a KP mission, I have little reason to drive within meltarange of your guys. I only have to take out your artillery, and then I can just drive away from your footsloggers until I'm ready to hose them down with multiple templates.

Ailaros wrote:

tedurur wrote:Correct me if Im wrong but you take dual HFs on your chimeras right?

I dont' run a mechanized list, myself, and thus don't bring any at all (although if I did, there would definitely be some flamers around). I fail to see what this has to do with stopping transports.

Because taking dual heavy flamers is an extremly poor choice, and a good example of your cost-efficiency thoughs going to far. "oh, multilazors aren't good against most things, the flamer is awesome at killing infantry, so I will go with that instead" - great idea, if it wasn't for the little issue that you will never get to fire both. It has one use - letting you still have a heavy flamer if you face a WD result, but then again, most opponents actually remove the multilaser unless your chimera is ontop of their guys, as it is a threat to their transports.


I know from the autocannon debates that you won't change your opinion until you figure something out yourself, but at least the OP might see that your advice in this thread is poor. Armies NEED a way to stop transports, crippling your opponents mobility is very important in most missions. Have fun playing against mech-eldar or battlewagon orks with only slow-moving meltas Sometimes, transports MUST die

Ailaros wrote:Right. The thing is that most things that are okay against transports are crappy against other stuff (or should be shooting at other stuff), this means that you need to sacrifice from the rest of your list to pay a premium to stop their transports when they're still on their side of the board.

What gun are you talking about here? It seems like you didn't really say anything besides, "shoot at other stuff, because it needs to die first". I am not following what is meant by a weapon being crappy, because it is meant to shoot at transports, but it is better at shooting other stuff which you shouldn't be shooting at with a crappy 'anti-transport' gun.

Your suggestion that meltas/assault will solve all problems, leads me to believe you play the game in a very specific way.

Given how cheap transports are, and how blowing them up doesn't eliminate the units inside, you're not getting a very good return on your rather considerable investment, relatively speaking.

You know what I want when I get damage on a tank? I want it stunned. I want it to stop moving, along with forcing the unit inside to lose any extension of their mobility. If I blow up the transport the units inside are now stuck in cover, meaning their mobility is not just reduced from losing the transport (by 3-6" depending on the unit), it is also reduced by extra rolled dice for DT (again, depending on the unit concerned)

Blowing up their transports doesn't stop this. Furthermore, no army's scariest units take regular transports (they take drop pods, or outflank, or have wings, or take LR's, etc.)

I am at a loss here, yet again, because I have no idea what you are talking about. If my opponent wants to drive his fancy tank line down the field, in unison, to deal a combined hit on turn 2-3, and I pop half of his tanks; that plan is now fethed. It is even more fethed if I can just manage to stun their whole transport array. The whole thing stopped moving, that is a major blow to any attempt of organizing a coordinated attack mid-game.

Just like any turn-based strategy, you need to break the game into parts, so that you know what matters when, and how much to prepare for a change in plan. Losing mobility on 'cheap' transports, is a big deal because they cost roughly 20% of any unit they are carrying, and in many situations are the only thing between that squad, and experiencing an agonizing death. In many situations the squad can count itself lucky that a transport exploded, instead of ejecting them onto bare soil because of a wrecked result.

You appear to be ignoring nearly half of what takes place in many games, and I have a hard time following what you are suggesting. Transports are a great place to hit your opponent, especially if their army's tactics revolve around their use.

transport armies already have the initiative over footslogging armies. Taking their transports away after turn 1 doesn't really change this. Also, if you're running a mechanized army (or drop pods, or whatever), than it's all moot anyways.

My mind is boggled.

I suggest playing a game where you automatically lose transports on turn two, while playing an army that relies on those transports to win games.

That depends on the game. Sometimes I'd blow it up with artillery, some times I'd charge in. The second point seems to assume that I'm not in control of my own movement and are thus incapable of putting meltaguns near objectives.

You are relying on a weapon that will get, on average, no more than 2 shots over the course of the whole game. You are not talking about MM, you are talking about melta. You will be able to use them, I have no doubt about that; the problem is that it doesn't sound like you are using Eldar, so FD are not at your service to set up camp with 5-10 meltas, holding down flags.

These points are both taken care of with movement with regards to the particular mission in the particular terrain. As such, any general advice or concern isn't really applicable.

What.

You really don't, though. Armies are perfectly capable of handling what comes out of transports when the cargo is nearby, and transports are generally quite easy to blow up at close range.

Where they may be quite easy to take down over the course of one turn, with one shot, from one squad, that would suggest that ranged weaponry is even better. More shots, over more turns, from more than one squad. Long range firepower is essential to taking out transports reliably, one or two meltas aimed at each tank is A.) not reliable, and/or B.) a great way to waste an assault squad for shooting. If you can always get within 6 inches (which you can't), and can always get assaults on units within transports (which you can't, because a D6 doesn't care if you want a 'sploded tank), then your good to go.

I won't go much further into where meltas fail to address many problems associated with taking on transports.

Your post was silly on more than a dozen counts.

Illumini wrote:Of course it stops it. If you take out the berzerker rhino in turn 1, those berzerkers are not going to hit your lines in the same turn as the ones that still have a transport

The berzerkers still move 7-12" per turn when not in a rhino. Furthermore, the rest of their army doesnt' need to move the full 12" every turn. Furthermore, this is ignoring all the other stuff that was never in a rhino in the first place.

Illumini wrote:Of course it does. He just lost a lot of his mobility... Another example are mech-vets with meltas - a unit that has a 21" melta-range in a transport. Remove the chimera, and they're down to 12". You just drastically removed your opponents ability to react to your move.

When you destroy a single transport, you destroy just that, a single transport. The rest of his army's mobility is just fine. Now, he would lose SOME of his mobility (remember, infantry still run), if you destroyed ALL of his transports right away, but the points cost to do that is obscene, and isn't even possible to do against certain mech armies (like guard).

And the meltagunners don't go from 21" to 12" they only go from 24" to 18". Six inches doesnt' seem like "lots of mobility" to me.

Illumini wrote:If I didn't have the capability to take out transports, I would have lost the finals of the last tournament I entered, as four chimeras full of guys would have flamed and lasgunned my blob holding the objective to shreds. My opponent could also easily just have parked his 7 chimeras on the objectives and played pillbox.

I'm sorry you couldn't figure out how to handle this some other way. I'm glad you won, though.

Illumini wrote:And then you assume that your opponent is a poor general that can't anticipate your movements and stop them? You don't expect to have all your options open to you in the closing stages of the game? Putting meltaguns on your oppoents objective can be very hard even with transports

You seem to think that all transports want to close range. Some transports are pillboxes, others are an extra layer of armour around a scoring unit. If my mech IG army played against your footarmy in a KP mission, I have little reason to drive within meltarange of your guys. I only have to take out your artillery, and then I can just drive away from your footsloggers until I'm ready to hose them down with multiple templates.

You seem to think that all transports want to close range. Some transports are pillboxes, others are an extra layer of armour around a scoring unit. If my mech IG army played against your footarmy in a KP mission, I have little reason to drive within meltarange of your guys. I only have to take out your artillery, and then I can just drive away from your footsloggers until I'm ready to hose them down with multiple templates.

To take down transports you will need light to medium long range anti-armor weapons. These would be weapons with a STR of 6 or above. Good tools for this would be autocannons, MLs or LCs.

Two of my favorite tools for this purpose are Dreads with TL ACs. Those are listed as heavy support in your list. That gives you 2 weapons each with a ~18.75% to destroy AV 11. Despite what was claimed earlier, these are multi-purpose. 4 long range STR 7 shots are useful vs bike armies, insta-killing eldar characters, putting wounds on MCs, etc.

Baal Predators are another solution for you. The TL AC on that vehicle has a ~18.4 chance of destroying AV 11 per round of shooting. While they have to get within 24" to use that gun, they get a scout move to help. If you throw heavy bolters on it, then it can act as anti-infantry as well, and can be used vs bikes, etc...

Another solution would be land speeder typhoons. While it has a ~21.1% of destruction on AV 11, they are a lot more fragile than Baal Predators. I use these in my vanilla marine army, but that is only because I cannot field Baal Predators.

This does not include melta weapons, as destroying a transport when it is in your face does not prove to be valuable Melta weapons are better for cracking high armor types, usually tanks like a Russ or a Raider.
This is not to discount the importance of melta! Melta weapons are how you can stop battlewagons or LRs before they drop troops in your face.

You can use this tool to test out your weapons to see what works best for you.
http://uma-musado.com/cgi-bin/mathHammer.cgi

Wrexasaur wrote:Where they may be quite easy to take down over the course of one turn, with one shot, from one squad, that would suggest that ranged weaponry is even better. More shots, over more turns, from more than one squad. Long range firepower is essential to taking out transports reliably, one or two meltas aimed at each tank is A.) not reliable, and/or B.) a great way to waste an assault squad for shooting. If you can always get within 6 inches (which you can't), and can always get assaults on units within transports (which you can't, because a D6 doesn't care if you want a 'sploded tank), then your good to go.

I won't go much further into where meltas fail to address many problems associated with taking on transports.

Your post was silly on more than a dozen counts.

In any army balance is the key to success. A commander who puts his faith in heavy weaponry alone will be outmanoeuvred. A commander who relies on close combat without support will lose his force to enemy fire. Each element must work in harmony so that the effectiveness of the army is greater than the sum of its parts. - Tactica Imperium.

Alirous, I'm curious, how do you take out Tau Mech armies with meltaguns? Tau won't be moving forward, they will be kiting away.

labmouse42 wrote:This does not include melta weapons, as destroying a transport when it is in your face does not prove to be valuable

But it's really cheap.

The alternative is to spend a lot of points and FOC slots in order to slightly slow your opponent. Why is this worth the expendiature?

Slarg232 wrote:Alirous, I'm curious, how do you take out Tau Mech armies with meltaguns? Tau won't be moving forward, they will be kiting away.

Firstly, I have guard artillery. Secondly, I have lots of meltaguns/other close ranged nastiness that outflanks with Al'Rahem.

For those who are not so blessed, and don't run transport armies of your own, or don't have any deepstrikers or outflankers in your codex (and for everyone else, actually), you have to look at the objectives.

If you place meltaguns on objectives, and your mech tau opponent wants to take the obejctive from you, they need to get in melta range. There is simply no way around this. Remember, this isn't a 4th ed shooting war. OBJECTIVES matter, not casualties.

But what about kill points? In order for a mech tau dude to do damage, they're going to have to be moving at regular, slow speeds rather than at freakish skimmer speeds. If they ARE moving fast (thus preventing me from getting my meltaguns in with slow foot squads), then they're not shooting, thus no one is doing damage. Eventually, a mech tau opponent will either get pinned into a corner, and I can slag them or they will have to gun it past my guys, in which case I melta them.

In any case, this is once again a question about movement and deployment which is once again dependent on the specific field conditions, which general advice can't help with.

And on a final note, yeah, you lose guys to gunfire in this game, transports or not. Get over it. Even if you can't, then remember that it's cheaper to take more guys to account for the casualties than it is to take more anti-transport - the more-dudes option also being much better for if your opponents don't bring transports, while the anti-transport list falls on its face.

Ailaros wrote:Six inches doesnt' seem like "lots of mobility" to me.

That is the problem then.

6 inches is the difference between getting a second die for your melta, and it is the reason your troops won't be able to jump onto a flag. A 1/2 inch is enough to wreck your gameplan, while 6 inches is enough to mangle it beyond repair.

We will call transports a flat 40 points, and with three of them, you may be able to afford something else on foot instead. When that extra movement, extra protection, and tactical advantage is necessary, it doesn't matter if you have 4 squads on foot versus 3 in transports. Transports are the reason many armies are competitive, and fractions of an inch can determine whether you can even tie games, let alone win them.

A longer range for a gun, means it's margin for error is larger, as compared to a gun with a shorter range (3-4x less in most situations). Long-ranged AT is a very important part to most armies, and for those who do not have access to it, make up for it in different ways. This does not stop most armies from needing that long-range stopping power, just to balance their force.

And on a final note, yeah, you lose guys to gunfire in this game, transports or not. Get over it. Even if you can't, then remember that it's cheaper to take more guys to account for the casualties than it is to take more anti-transport - the more-dudes option also being much better for if your opponents don't bring transports, while the anti-transport list falls on its face.

Your argument boils down to footslogging being better...

Transports are cost effective to the point that replacing them with more units, can be no less than a waste of points. None of your units will have a transport, and they will pay the price for that. You are discounting a large part of the game, simply because it doesn't agree with your style of gaming.

+1 Wrexasaur

I think Ailaros is trolling. His theories are so totally off-base, and he's trying so hard to convince us otherwise he probably is lying to pass theory off as game experience.

@Ailaros: Yes, I give examples of things that happens in games, but those examples are pretty general, and are things that your army should be equipped to handle. Pillboxing, objective-camping, kiting, ability to launch coherent assaults or to react well to your opponents moves are all important facets of this game.

And the meltagunners don't go from 21" to 12" they only go from 24" to 18". Six inches doesnt' seem like "lots of mobility" to me.

I said "melta-range", meaning the 6" you get the extra mile out of your meltagun, but it doesn't really matter. With a transport, you get an extra 6" movement +2" disembark + almost 1" base = 9" more range. You can also often get another 1" from free pivots. That is a pretty decent extension of range on a short range gun like a melta or a flamer, and often means the difference between a destroyed and an alive land raider/demolisher/infantry squad/etc.

I fully agree that causing your opponent to have less mobility is preferable to causing your opponent to have more mobility. The question is "at what cost?" and "to what end?" Your arguments seem to answer these questions with "at any cost" and "it IS its own end", respectively.

I do believe that some of your pts allowance has to be spent on things that can disable transports. It depends on the army how much is needed. For orks, some deff-rollas, deffkoptas and boarding planks can be enough, others need to spend more pts on it. You should note however, that most anti-transport weapons have a dual use. I suggested Baal Predators, las/auto preds, vindicators, speeders, attackbikes and devastators earlier. All of them can do dual action, they may be able to take on heavier tanks, they may be capable of shredding infantry, but they all have a use against transports as well. An example from my current IG army is my squadron of 2x hydra. Fully capable of taking on transports, but also just as capable of putting tons of wounds on infantry. I would say that your idea, with "just don't bother, let them do their thing and rely on meltaguns and close combat" just don't cut it. There are too many scenarios and armies that will end badly with this train of thought.

and the second belies a lack of objective-based thinking.

Taking out your opponents mobility is very important in objective missions, especially in a capture and control mission. Take out your opponents transports, and he will struggle very hard to take/contest your objective. Against some armies, ability to take out transports can also mean the difference between being tabled and tabling the other guy. (ie: Battlewagon orks)

Illumini wrote:@Ailaros: Yes, I give examples of things that happens in games, but those examples are pretty general, and are things that your army should be equipped to handle. Pillboxing, objective-camping, kiting, ability to launch coherent assaults or to react well to your opponents moves are all important facets of this game.

Yep.

I said "melta-range", meaning the 6" you get the extra mile out of your meltagun, but it doesn't really matter. With a transport, you get an extra 6" movement +2" disembark + almost 1" base = 9" more range. You can also often get another 1" from free pivots. That is a pretty decent extension of range on a short range gun like a melta or a flamer, and often means the difference between a destroyed and an alive land raider/demolisher/infantry squad/etc.

Which is why Fire Dragons are so blatantly awesome. Good price, fantastic weapon choices, and access to what is usually the most agile tank in the game. You pay upwards of 3 times the points (compared to a 40 point transport) for the WS that makes them so awesome, and while I think that Eldar tanks are overpriced, it gives a very clear example of why transports are so damn important for many armies.

I do believe that some of your pts allowance has to be spent on things that can disable transports. It depends on the army how much is needed. For orks, some deff-rollas, deffkoptas and boarding planks can be enough, others need to spend more pts on it. You should note however, that most anti-transport weapons have a dual use. I suggested Baal Predators, las/auto preds, vindicators, speeders, attackbikes and devastators earlier. All of them can do dual action, they may be able to take on heavier tanks, they may be capable of shredding infantry, but they all have a use against transports as well. An example from my current IG army is my squadron of 2x hydra. Fully capable of taking on transports, but also just as capable of putting tons of wounds on infantry. I would say that your idea, with "just don't bother, let them do their thing and rely on meltaguns and close combat" just don't cut it. There are too many scenarios and armies that will end badly with this train of thought.

The one thing that I really appreciate about standard Eldar weaponry, is their access to S6 spam. Taking 6-7 shots on a tank (half of which are TL), makes for a very practical way to counter light AV targets.

Taking out your opponents mobility is very important in objective missions, especially in a capture and control mission. Take out your opponents transports, and he will struggle very hard to take/contest your objective. Against some armies, ability to take out transports can also mean the difference between being tabled and tabling the other guy. (ie: Battlewagon orks)

BW orks will be in big trouble if you can keep them stationary, at range. 2 turns of movement is absolutely vital to many tactics concerning Orks, and they won't do very well w/o the aid of a transport to buff their movement, along with keeping them from being flamed to death.

Mmmm... War muffins.

DarkHound wrote:I think Ailaros is trolling. His theories are so totally off-base, and he's trying so hard to convince us otherwise he probably is lying to pass theory off as game experience.

Why did you post this? As best I can tell, you're trying to shut down dialogue with personal insults. How is this not the very definition of trolling?

Wrexasaur wrote:. A 1/2 inch is enough to wreck your gameplan, while 6 inches is enough to mangle it beyond repair.

Wow, if you're strategy is so fragile that a half inch of movement will completely destroy you, then I feel bad for you. Perhaps you would consider changing over to something less fragile?

Illumini wrote:I do believe that some of your pts allowance has to be spent on things that can disable transports.

CAN be, but why? There is a serious cost involved in stopping transports very early. Either you're not spending enough points, and your opponent's transports are getting through basically unmolested, or you're spending a lot of points to take them down, leaving the rest of your army lacking...

Illumini wrote:You should note however, that most anti-transport weapons have a dual use.

... or an uncomfortable middle ground between the two. Dual use weapons are either very expensive for what they do to transports, or they are pretty ineffective against transports (because they're also good against something else), which means that you need to take a lot of them to be effective, which means that they're very expensive for what they do to transports.

Illumini wrote:Taking out your opponents mobility is very important in objective missions, especially in a capture and control mission.

Mobility is important, but to what end? The whole point of mobility is to get more stuff on objectives faster. If you have stuff that utterly destroys stuff that comes out of transports onto objectives, then what does the transport really count for?

You can talk about transports sitting around, or flitting about the board just out of reach all you want, but that kind of behavior loses games. The point of an army's movement is to complete it's objective. If the transports aren't completing their objective, then why does it matter what your opponent does with them?

No, the point of transports is to get things which are killy close to their opponents, and for getting scoring units onto objectives. If I'm on the objectives, then the whole point of transports is to get units close to my stuff. How convenient that meltaguns work best at short range, given that the whole point of his transport is to close range.

Wrexasaur wrote:Your argument boils down to footslogging being better...

No, there are lots of ways of handling transports, footslogging being only one possible way. Pretending like you can stop them before them before it's too late is not a way I'd recommend.

Illumini wrote:Yes, I give examples of things that happens in games, but those examples are pretty general, and are things that your army should be equipped to handle. Pillboxing, objective-camping, kiting, ability to launch coherent assaults or to react well to your opponents moves are all important facets of this game.

So my point with all this is that you could come up with a hypothetical situation with certain units starting in a certain place (deploying), and moving in a certain way. I could then come up with an equally hypothetical list of units that start in a certain place and move in a certain way to counter. How does the individual cases of movement and shooting form a general picture of how to deal with transports?

My point is just this - transports need to be dealt with in the deployment and movement phases. This is because there aren't wonder-guns that can just point-and-click the problem away. The only way to create this illusion is to spend a detrimental amount of points. As I refuse to do this, I'm left with the understanding that there is no way to stop your opponent's stuff from hitting your lines when they run transport armies.

How do I handle this? Well, just look at drop pods (or deepstrikers in general, or outflankers, etc.) In this case, there is literally nothing I can do to stop them before they show up, unmolested, with their units. What is the advice that everybody gives for handling drop pods? It's advice that has to do with movement and deployment. The same is true for transports. Just because you can't effectively bring them down before it's too late doesn't mean you sit there and pout, it means that you practice the appropriate counter-tactics on the field, just like dealing with drop pods.

Ailaros wrote:

DarkHound wrote:I think Ailaros is trolling. His theories are so totally off-base, and he's trying so hard to convince us otherwise he probably is lying to pass theory off as game experience.

Why did you post this? As best I can tell, you're trying to shut down dialogue with personal insults. How is this not the very definition of trolling?

Well, here's the problem: your theories are rubbish. What I'm doing could be called flame-bating, not trolling, and I don't have much else to add to the conversation; the proper way to deal with transports and the serious power their mobility and protection gives you is being covered well enough by others. I posted because what you're writing is wrong and won't hold up in a real game, and the more people who post against it, the less likely it is a newb will try it. Thus we save him time by preventing him from losing terribly, then starting a thread about it where we'll go through the same old song and dance. I think I had a point in posting it, but I'll let the mods judge me anyone cares.

Anyway, to help the BA player, you have a bunch of great multi-function units. Your Devastators are priced great: take Missile Launchers or a Plasmacannon or two. Landspeeder Typhoons are awesome. Dreadnoughts are great with a TL-Autocannon, or two, although keeping a single close combat weapon is also very viable. Predators are great too. Blood Angels, like Space Wolves and, to a lesser extent, CSM, get great anti-infantry and close combat units from what they are required to take. That leaves them more points for ranged anti-tank; don't be afraid to only have anti-tank outside of your Troops and HQ. On the other hand, don't feel forced to take what you don't need. Only you can find the balance that fits for you.

I don't follow most of what you are saying Ailaros, it is difficult to understand what you mean, besides your opinion that you can get by w/o long-ranged guns.

Some armies can get by w/o, and are no less than forced to make that decision some of the time. BA have access to some very nice tanks, and you can even use Landspeeders or Dreadnoughts given your preferred style. There are plenty of choices for BA, MM and Asscans happen to be suited to the armies style of play. You want to coordinate your army, so you can plan to assault units after a transport has been wrecked (which you can force if through multiple damage results, with an Asscan). There is no simple way to explain this, but it does boil down to letting each part of your army do what it does best, by allowing each unit to perform a role, keeping your entire army as one unit. There are ways to split an army into 'separate' parts, giving you roughly two of the same thing; this generally isn't the case and you will need to use your army as a multipurpose tool. I want my army to be a swiss army knife, because most games require it.

Maybe not a fancy swiss army knife, I would probably settle for a solid leatherman. Multi-tools are actually a great analogy for an effective WH40k army. You will find that armies lacking a basic set of tools, will face more losses in general. Note that this is not true for all codices, as Orks will attest to; they are the machetes of WH40k, great multi-purpose tools in themselves.

I like Orks better as the AK-47's of 40k. Rugged, reliable, and able to fix any situation that requires the enemy dead. You can get an AK anywhere in the world (galaxy). Anyway, that's beside the point.

Anyway, to further explain what Wrexasaur was saying I'll provide an example from my army. My Predator, my Noise Marines, and my Slaaneshi Bikers. My Predator is equiped with all Lascannons to let it engage targets big and small, but it makes it almost over-kill at opening transports. Once the transport is opened, the Noise Marines get to reach out with their 24" of infantry death. Now, rarely is this ever enough to kill a squad, although it softens them up. That's where the Bikers come in. They roll up, fire their TL-Bolters, then Assault at I5; they're only a 4 man squad, so getting all their attacks in before the enemy can retaliate is essential to keeping them alive. Now, each of these squads is very specialised: Predators only kill transports, Noise Marines only kill infantry, and the Bikers can't engage large squads. However, when they work in concert they all get a peice of the action.

That's a very perfect scenario, and obviously it rarely plays out like that in a single turn. Given a turn or so, it does work.

... or an uncomfortable middle ground between the two. Dual use weapons are either very expensive for what they do to transports, or they are pretty ineffective against transports

The middle ground weapons that are not very effective against transports are often cheap weapons that you add to units that you already take for some reason or another, f.ex. a multilaser on a chimera, an autocannon on an infantry squad etc. They are not great at their job, but they add a threat-level, and they can do something. Your opponent doesn't want to expose chimera sidearmour or a raider to a multilaser or an autocannon, a rhino can often be stopped cold by an autocannon etc.

Multi-purpose is also another way to ensure redundancy without resorting to direct spamming.

Many multi-purpose units are also highly effective at all their roles for their pts cost. F.ex: Manticore, hydra, attack bikes, long fangs etc. etc.

No, the point of transports is to get things which are killy close to their opponents, and for getting scoring units onto objective

That is an extremly narrow PoV on transports, they fullfill many other roles in armies, many of which I have already discussed.

You can talk about transports sitting around, or flitting about the board just out of reach all you want, but that kind of behavior loses games. The point of an army's movement is to complete it's objective. If the transports aren't completing their objective, then why does it matter what your opponent does with them?

Not all games are objective games. In a KP game, my army would be quite comfortable with hugging the table-egde vs an opponent with little long range anti-tank.

So my point with all this is that you could come up with a hypothetical situation with certain units starting in a certain place (deploying), and moving in a certain way. I could then come up with an equally hypothetical list of units that start in a certain place and move in a certain way to counter. How does the individual cases of movement and shooting form a general picture of how to deal with transports?

The hypothetical situations were examples on things that often happen in a game, including several common tactics/builds. They were used to point out flaws in your way of dealing with transports, because you can not deal with it efficiently with slow moving meltas and close combat. Dismissing them as something that can't be discussed because I provided examples of said common situations/builds does little to dismiss the point that your logic is flawed.


You have very much focus on taking stuff that kills the things inside the transports, but if you can't crack the transports, how effective are really those guns? You loose a lot of shooting while the enemy stays inside his metal BAWKSES. If you had the firepower to take out several in turn 1, all your guns would have something to shoot at the entire game. Also, if the opponent is fully mechanized and shooty, and you can't crack those transports at range, then he will simply outshoot you. If he has his entire army left on turn 5, you will probably not have much of yours left, seeing as you have taken an army's worth of guns for 5 turns. He will probably be in a superior tactical position when it comes to taking objectives. (and with his transports still intact, he can make 16"-36" objective grabs in the late turns.)

I will change my mind based on sound reasoning

Easy to say when you only believe that your own reasoning is sound

Ailaros wrote:But it's really cheap.

The alternative is to spend a lot of points and FOC slots in order to slightly slow your opponent. Why is this worth the expendiature?

Thats simple. In a game that lasts 5 to 7 turns, slowing down a squad by 1 or 2 turns can remove them for up to 40% of the game.

In addition to transports there are many other threats that melta weapons are not the best tool for. Here are some examples.
* Valks shooting 3 TL LC
* 3 typhoons hovering 40 inches away
* War walkers with scatter lasers and guide/doom

As you can see, light AT has multiple uses that grant it worth a slot or two in your FOC. One dual TL AC dread costs 125 points, and can easily earn that back in 1 turn off raw points, in addition to the soft value of destroying transports. Is one or two worth it? Definitely. Are 8 worth it in a 1500 game? No. Like all things in a well rounded army, it's about finding balance.

Again, that is not to discount melta. They are great tools.

Wrexasaur wrote: BA have access to some very nice tanks, and you can even use Landspeeders or Dreadnoughts given your preferred style.

That are expensive for what they do, yes.

Wrexasaur wrote: You want to coordinate your army, so you can plan to assault units after a transport has been wrecked (which you can force if through multiple damage results, with an Asscan). There is no simple way to explain this, but it does boil down to letting each part of your army do what it does best, by allowing each unit to perform a role, keeping your entire army as one unit.

I could not agree with this more. Our point of divergeance appears to be you favoring spending lots of points on relatively low-effectiveness guns, whereas I do not.

DarkHound wrote:My Predator is equiped with all Lascannons to let it engage targets big and small, but it makes it almost over-kill at opening transports.

See, here's the problem. A lascannon pred isn't a guarantee for taking down transports, given that competent players will make it so your only shooting it at cover (say, through smoke), before it offloads its cargo.

Furthermore, you can easily take many transports in your army. I can take three transports for the price of just one lascannon pred, which the pred will certainly be unable to stop before its too late. Furthermore, you can only take 3 preds, which means I can always take more transports than you can preds.

I understand the point of your fictionalized situation. Combined arms are good, I agree. The divergeance is that I believe you should only combine arms which are good at their jobs, whereas you're advocating spending lots of points to combine arms which are bad at their jobs. The reason I say they're bad is because of the numbers. If you can come up with some way to make long-range anti-transport work with the numbers and the game as a whole, I'd like to see them.

Illumini wrote:The middle ground weapons that are not very effective against transports are often cheap weapons that you add to units that you already take for some reason or another, f.ex. a multilaser on a chimera, an autocannon on an infantry squad etc. They are not great at their job, but they add a threat-level, and they can do something. Your opponent doesn't want to expose chimera sidearmour or a raider to a multilaser or an autocannon, a rhino can often be stopped cold by an autocannon etc.

Okay, yes. I agree that things like lascannons play a psychological factor. That said, better players will be able to ignore the fear factor, especially if they're savvy about how the statistics work out.

Illumini wrote:Multi-purpose is also another way to ensure redundancy without resorting to direct spamming.

Another way? Yeah. A BETTER way? I can't see how. Spamming weapons that are worse in lots of roles doesn't seem to me to be better than spamming weapons which are good at roles, at least as whole-list composition is concerned.

Illumini wrote:Many multi-purpose units are also highly effective at all their roles for their pts cost. F.ex: Manticore, hydra, attack bikes, long fangs etc. etc.

Long fangs are specialized by their gear and bikes are really expensive for what they do.

The only one I agree with is the manticore, but that's just one unit, not "many".

Illumini wrote:That is an extremly narrow PoV on transports, they fullfill many other roles in armies, many of which I have already discussed.

... but none of those other roles matter if they don't help you win the game.

Illumini wrote:Not all games are objective games. In a KP game, my army would be quite comfortable with hugging the table-egde vs an opponent with little long range anti-tank.

... and you wouldn't kill anything, at least not with the transports or the dudes inside.

Plus, having no long range anti-tank only matters if your opponent has no mobility of firepower, which is easily achieved through artillery, transports, drop pods, outflanking, etc. etc. 5th ed is the rules version of mobility. There is no way that your opponent is going to let you stay out of melta range unless they're a special weapons gunline that doesn't move, in which case they deserve to loose a kill point game to a transport army.

Illumini wrote:The hypothetical situations were examples on things that often happen in a game, including several common tactics/builds. They were used to point out flaws in your way of dealing with transports, because you can not deal with it efficiently with slow moving meltas and close combat. Dismissing them as something that can't be discussed because I provided examples of said common situations/builds does little to dismiss the point that your logic is flawed.

I agree, attempting to take down transports on a kill-points mission with just slow-moving meltaguns against a target that is capable of infinitely running away with transports IS a stupid idea, and believing that it's good would require flawed logic.

As it is, I'm not advocating for anything of the sort when it comes to kill points. When it comes to objectives, your opponent needs to drive at you in order to have any chance of winning, so mobility of meltaguns is moot.

Illumini wrote:You have very much focus on taking stuff that kills the things inside the transports, but if you can't crack the transports, how effective are really those guns?

I'm actually advocating that people take guns that are effective against transports. As such, I'd always expect transports to be cracked in the rare circumstance that my opponent spends his entire game hiding in his transports.

Of course, this is kind of a side track argument as most of the time you need to get out of the transports in order to win.

Illumini wrote: Also, if the opponent is fully mechanized and shooty, and you can't crack those transports at range, then he will simply outshoot you.

With transports? I'm sorry if I'm not quaking with fear for the damage output of rhinos. The only transport that can do decent damage is a falcon, but that's a whole other metagame can of worms. With the exception of chimeras, everyone has to get out of their transports to shoot, which means that they're not outshooting me.

Or they're getting out of the transports, and I kill them. What's the problem?

Aside from everything said above, as far as points are concerned, I field free ML's in my tac squads, as the open up transports with krak, then they get killy on the squad inside with frag. All for free...as cheap as it gets.

Ailaros wrote:I could not agree with this more. Our point of divergeance appears to be you favoring spending lots of points on relatively low-effectiveness guns, whereas I do not

Our point of divergence, the place which we disagree, is in the fact that you seem to be a huge fan of meltas. I like meltas as well, but I would be kidding myself if I thought I would be better off using ONLY melta. That is what I have gathered from your posts, which are getting more and more confusing.

What you have said so far has been convoluted for the most part, and lacking in substance. I like meltas as well, but they don't solve every problem; you need other types of ranged weaponry to fill in the gaps. If you don't feel that way, it is entirely up to you, it's your army and your game-time.

DarkHound wrote:I like Orks better as the AK-47's of 40k. Rugged, reliable, and able to fix any situation that requires the enemy dead. You can get an AK anywhere in the world (galaxy). Anyway, that's beside the point.

Sigged. Thank you very much.

Ailaros wrote:

Illumini wrote: Also, if the opponent is fully mechanized and shooty, and you can't crack those transports at range, then he will simply outshoot you.

With transports? I'm sorry if I'm not quaking with fear for the damage output of rhinos. The only transport that can do decent damage is a falcon, but that's a whole other metagame can of worms. With the exception of chimeras, everyone has to get out of their transports to shoot, which means that they're not outshooting me.

Or they're getting out of the transports, and I kill them. What's the problem?

Raiders

Wave Serpents

Razorbacks

Dual heavy weapon rhinos

I have a big problem with the last line of that quote.

-----------------------------------

As to the OP:

Do you have jump packing blood angels? or mechanized blood angels? That can be a big difference of advice.

Or drop podding/ foot slogging.

As for mechanized, razorbacks with medium-high strength weapons are a good choice. Assault cannons usually make transports cringe.

Jump packs, dual melta & melta bomb assault squads.

I just accept the fact that I'm not going to kill every vehicle every turn, and having a mix of weapons ensures I can usually take out one or more vehicles at range per turn, depending on opponent's disposition (AV values), deployment (facings), terrain (cover/LoS) and dice (rolling one's on the damage chart with lascannon pens ).

Anyone tried 4x GL's in a PCS with a multilaser chim? 7 s6 shots at 24" on the move (for increased flank shot potential) seems like a pretty good platform for anti-transport. I brought one along the last couple of battles but it was too busy shooting at the squads that had fallen out of the transports that my lascannons, missile launchers and autocannons had killed.

And you know what? You don't have to kill a vehicle to have done your job for a turn. Stunned, Immobilized, Wrecked, or Explodes are all acceptable damage results. That's a 66% chance you'll do something important even without AP1. The odds get better the less weapons a tank has on it, as a double Weapon Destroyed will immobilize a Rhino.

True. Transports have a job...transporting. All you have to do is quash that for a turn, and you have put a serious crimp on your opponents game plan. Although exploding and wrecking are more fun!

murdog wrote:Anyone tried 4x GL's in a PCS with a multilaser chim? 7 s6 shots at 24" on the move (for increased flank shot potential) seems like a pretty good platform for anti-transport. I brought one along the last couple of battles but it was too busy shooting at the squads that had fallen out of the transports that my lascannons, missile launchers and autocannons had killed.

GLs and MLs are anti-infantry weapons. The fact that you spent most of your time shooting at infantry with them when there was still armor on the board sort of testifies to this fact.

7 S6 shots may sound pretty, but when you actually work out the math, you find that this squad needs to shoot at a rhino for about 4 turns in order to wreck or immobilize it. Of course, this is assuming that the rhino never has cover. In any case, the rhino, like a drop pod, is expendable once it delivers it's cargo, which means you really need to take it down like turn 1, something for which the weapons combo you suggesst is woefully unequal.

Nantukoshade wrote:Aside from everything said above, as far as points are concerned, I field free ML's in my tac squads, as the open up transports with krak, then they get killy on the squad inside with frag. All for free...as cheap as it gets.

Firstly, a single missile launcher isn't all that likely to stop a transport if your opponent is correctly using SMF or smoke. You sort of get what you pay for.

Secondly, the points cost may be free, but you're still paying in that your tac squad had to sit on its butts for a whole turn to squeeze off a missile shot.

Wrexasaur wrote:Our point of divergence, the place which we disagree, is in the fact that you seem to be a huge fan of meltas. I like meltas as well, but I would be kidding myself if I thought I would be better off using ONLY melta.

A big fan of meltas, yeah. They tend to make vehicles very dead when you shoot them at stuff, and I like effective weapons. I also like meltabombs and eviscerators and manticores for this very reason.

Why do you not think you would be better off by using only effective weapons? What do you really gain by taking less of them so that you can bring weapons that aren't going to neutralize their targets before the targets themselves become moot?

Wrexasaur wrote:That is what I have gathered from your posts, which are getting more and more confusing. What you have said so far has been convoluted for the most part, and lacking in substance.

You probably can't see the substance because, as you mention, you're confused, which you're attempting to justify by calling me convoluted (which really doesn't help anything). I am sorry that you're confused, though, so let me re-post my point:

Ailaros wrote:My point is just this - transports need to be dealt with in the deployment and movement phases. This is because there aren't wonder-guns that can just point-and-click the problem away. The only way to create this illusion is to spend a detrimental amount of points. As I refuse to do this, I'm left with the understanding that there is no way to stop your opponent's stuff from hitting your lines when they run transport armies.

How do I handle this? Well, just look at drop pods (or deepstrikers in general, or outflankers, etc.) In this case, there is literally nothing I can do to stop them before they show up, unmolested, with their units. What is the advice that everybody gives for handling drop pods? It's advice that has to do with movement and deployment. The same is true for transports. Just because you can't effectively bring them down before it's too late doesn't mean you sit there and pout, it means that you practice the appropriate counter-tactics on the field, just like dealing with drop pods.

Let me know how I can make this more clear.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:
Raiders

Wave Serpents

Razorbacks

Dual heavy weapon rhinos

Yeah, but these are tanks that happen to have dudes strapped to them.

Either they sit back and shoot, in which case we're talking about "dealing with tanks" rather than "dealing with transports", or they're moving forward to transport their cargo, in which case their firepower is greatly reduced (usually to zero), at which point my transport advise makes sense, as well as my not worrying about their firepower.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:I have a big problem with the last line of that quote.

Which is?

DarkHound wrote:And you know what? You don't have to kill a vehicle to have done your job for a turn. Stunned, Immobilized, Wrecked, or Explodes are all acceptable damage results.

Nantukoshade wrote:All you have to do is quash that for a turn, and you have put a serious crimp on your opponents game plan.

I think you're seriously underestimating your opponent (or are playing crappy ones). Stopping a transport is less than ideal for the transporter, sure, but the guys inside are still there, and they can still move nearly as fast by getting out (or crawling out of wreckage) and running.

I mean, every strategy has to have contingency plans in order to work, because there will always be complications due to enemy actions. I mean, in the case of a drop pod army, if the drop pods scatter 12" away from your opponent, do you just sit down and pout? Of course not. Likewise, a transport-based army is still plenty viable, even if their cheap, expendable wrapper gets thrown away earlier than they'd hoped.

Ailaros wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Our point of divergence, the place which we disagree, is in the fact that you seem to be a huge fan of meltas. I like meltas as well, but I would be kidding myself if I thought I would be better off using ONLY melta.

A big fan of meltas, yeah. They tend to make vehicles very dead when you shoot them at stuff, and I like effective weapons. I also like meltabombs and eviscerators and manticores for this very reason.

Why do you not think you would be better off by using only effective weapons? What do you really gain by taking less of them so that you can bring weapons that aren't going to neutralize their targets before the targets themselves become moot?

Your use of the word 'effective' and 'moot', has yet to convince me that your concepts make sense. Keep in mind that I have attacked your arguments, and not you.

You choose to limit your choice of weapons as much as possible, concluding that using less weapon types, produces better results. I disagree entirely with you, and you have done little to convince me otherwise.

Wrexasaur wrote:That is what I have gathered from your posts, which are getting more and more confusing. What you have said so far has been convoluted for the most part, and lacking in substance.

You probably can't see the substance because, as you mention, you're confused, which you're attempting to justify by calling me convoluted (which really doesn't help anything). I am sorry that you're confused, though, so let me re-post my point:

Again, note that I am attacking your arguments, and not you. I have called your arguments convoluted and confusing, because they are convoluted and confusing. I have no idea who you are, and would not benefit from attacking your character, which I have not done at all.

This happens to be the second time you have lashed out at me personally, just take note of that.

My point is just this - transports need to be dealt with in the deployment and movement phases. This is because there aren't wonder-guns that can just point-and-click the problem away. The only way to create this illusion is to spend a detrimental amount of points. As I refuse to do this, I'm left with the understanding that there is no way to stop your opponent's stuff from hitting your lines when they run transport armies.

How do I handle this? Well, just look at drop pods (or deepstrikers in general, or outflankers, etc.) In this case, there is literally nothing I can do to stop them before they show up, unmolested, with their units. What is the advice that everybody gives for handling drop pods? It's advice that has to do with movement and deployment. The same is true for transports. Just because you can't effectively bring them down before it's too late doesn't mean you sit there and pout, it means that you practice the appropriate counter-tactics on the field, just like dealing with drop pods.
Let me know how I can make this more clear.

Your reasoning makes little sense to me.

As I understand it, you play in a very specific style, and supposedly have gotten it to work. I took some time to look through your posts, and found a Batrep that speaks directly to the weaknesses in an army such as you are describing. I won't use it as an example of incompetency, rather as a game in which your specific style of gameplay, simply didn't work. You didn't lose terribly, but it certainly sounded like your army struggled to not do so. It is important to note that your problems arose from FNP mainly (or so it seemed), along with deployment, but your use of meltas didn't seem to do much of anything in terms of helping you win the game.

Your reference to drop pods is interesting, but entirely misleading. I do not encounter drop-pod armies unless I am playing in one of 4 areas I game in. They simply don't appear all that often, and I would assume that is the case because of all the draw-backs to using them in the first place, and the ease of which one can use other means of getting troops on the board. The main difference between a drop-pod and a standard transport, is that the drop-pod is absolutely stationary, and serves as no more than a one time delivery mechanism. Again, misleading.

I run into standard transports in nearly every game I play, and I want to be prepared for them because they are the reason an opponent will be able to snag flags mid to late-game. The primary purpose of a transport is to provide mobility to the unit inside, and simply referring to that extra mobility as moot (again, confusing, convoluted, and misleading) is a foolish way to go about dealing with transports. 3-12" of extra movement is what makes FoF units, Jumppack units, Bike units, Landspeeder units, and Skimmers, viable means of buffing different parts of your army.

Next time you get assaulted by a Nob Biker squad because you underestimated the movement benefits of a bike, take note of this conversation. We are mainly discussing the strengths and weaknesses of transports, and I feel very strongly (due to experience) that transports are of huge benefit to many armies, due to their extended mobility. Your suggestion that the extra mobility provided from standard transports is somehow meaningless, strikes me as foolhardy...

Take note, again, that I have attacked your arguments and not you. I do not know you, and do not presume to know your character, let alone the negative aspects of it. Game how you want, I am nothing more than a dude on the internet, having a discussion about transports, and how to deal with them. We happen to disagree on a great many things concerning this subject, and I feel it has minimized our ability to have a reasonable discussion.

Ailaros wrote:

DarkHound wrote:And you know what? You don't have to kill a vehicle to have done your job for a turn. Stunned, Immobilized, Wrecked, or Explodes are all acceptable damage results.

Nantukoshade wrote:All you have to do is quash that for a turn, and you have put a serious crimp on your opponents game plan.

I think you're seriously underestimating your opponent (or are playing crappy ones). Stopping a transport is less than ideal for the transporter, sure, but the guys inside are still there, and they can still move nearly as fast by getting out (or crawling out of wreckage) and running.

If my opponent disembarks his squad because the Chimera or Rhino got stunned, then proceeds to run them, he has given me a wrecked result on that Chimera. The whole point of destroying the transport is to expose the infantry inside. While his infantry stay inside the transport they are safe from harm, but exit it and they are vulnerable to you. So your opponent has a choice when his transport gets stunned: deploy the troops and try to make up for lost ground, but lose some, if not all, or he can stay in the transport and lose a turn of movement. Neither choice is a good one, which is exactly why you should take anti-transport weapons.

If you ignore the transports then your opponent's troops will make it to you unscathed. To win, you must keep your opponent out of the places he wants to get to, away from the objectives he wants to take and out of his comfort zone. The point of a transport isn't primarily to move faster: the point is to keep the infantry safe. Infantry slogging up the board can potentially keep pace with a transport, but they will never survive as long as one. A vehicle is potentially indestructable, and infantry are not.

If you ignore the transports then your opponent's troops will make it to you unscathed. To win, you must keep your opponent out of the places he wants to get to, away from the objectives he wants to take and out of his comfort zone. The point of a transport isn't primarily to move faster: the point is to keep the infantry safe. Infantry slogging up the board can potentially keep pace with a transport, but they will never survive as long as one. A vehicle is potentially indestructable, and infantry are not.

I actually disagree with you here. I feel that the main strength of a transport in general, is it's ability to deliver units to their objectives faster and more reliably than they could do otherwise. You can potentially roll nothing but 6's for DT/Run, but the odds of that happening are slim to none. You'll probably end up with a few 6's, a few 1's, and a few 2-5's; all averaging to about 3 inches over the course of many games. Transports just move, and they can always move 12-24 inches (depending on the transport), until they are shot down.

The point that you bring up is important, namely that no transports, means your infantry is vulnerable to being shot down by IG flashlights. With transports, they are completely invulnerable to S3 firepower, and S4 firepower will rarely be useful either. Even S5 firepower will have a really hard time against AV11, you really need S6+ weaponry to deal with transports.

To summarize, AV is a direct counter to S3 weapons, nearly invulnerable to S4 weapons in small numbers, and it only really needs to worry about S6+ weaponry. Finding a counter that is literally as cheap as a standard 40 point transport alone, is not possible. Taking out the transport damages the squad, and stunning it also damages the squad, only in a more achievable and reliable way. A squad of WW can drop 24 S6 shots at 3 ft., and for as long as they are alive, meaning 2-3 turns, or 48-72 shots. Just a tad more reliable than 2 shots from short-range guns/game.

The important part is that the transport extends range in many different ways, and will always be able to move that squad at least 12 inches onto an objective. Taking out transports is priority early game for me, in every game, or I have to worry about late-game a whole lot more. Suppression fire seems to be the most effective method of accomplishing that, weapons that damage both transports and infantry are a fantastic addition to most armies.

Wrexasaur wrote:You choose to limit your choice of weapons as much as possible, concluding that using less weapon types, produces better results. I disagree entirely with you, and you have done little to convince me otherwise.

I'm talking about limiting yourself to only taking weapons which are effective at what they shoot against. Taking more effective weapons rather than fewer so that you can take less effective ones, produces better results.

What would convince you that taking effective weapons is a good thing?

Wrexasaur wrote:This happens to be the second time you have lashed out at me personally, just take note of that.

Lashed out? You called yourself confused, I was simply trying to help explain why. Lesson learned.

Wrexasaur wrote:As I understand it, you play in a very specific style, and supposedly have gotten it to work.

I have repeatedly stated that I am not trying to push one single style. I have repeatedly stated that lots of styles can work.

What more must I say to convince you that I'm not pushing just one style of play?

Wrexasaur wrote:Your reference to drop pods is interesting, but entirely misleading. I do not encounter drop-pod armies unless I am playing in one of 4 areas I game in.

Well, if you need personal experience to believe in something, that's not something I can supply in a tactics forum.

Wrexasaur wrote:I run into standard transports in nearly every game I play, and I want to be prepared for them because they are the reason an opponent will be able to snag flags mid to late-game. The primary purpose of a transport is to provide mobility to the unit inside, and simply referring to that extra mobility as moot (again, confusing, convoluted, and misleading) is a foolish way to go about dealing with transports. 3-12" of extra movement is what makes FoF units, Jumppack units, Bike units, Landspeeder units, and Skimmers, viable means of buffing different parts of your army.

Once again, I wonder where this comes from. I am an ardent supporter of mobility. At no point have I said that mobility is stupid.

The point that I've been making is that mobility is only useful inasmuch as it wins you games. To win games, your opponent needs to bring their transports to you. You can either approach this fact by expensive, low-effectiveness means by blowing their transports up way over there, or you can handle both the transports and their cargo with cheaper, high-effectiveness means when they come to you. If they don't come to you, they lose games. If they lose the game, then why does it matter if the transports were always out of melta range?

Instead, my point is that transports should be stopped with mobility. You can outflank dudes into side armor. You can deepstrike meltaguns (or whatever) through a variety of means. You can take objectives and force him to come to you. You can put your own, high quality weapons in transports. There are lots and lots of ways to handle transports, it's just that they way you handle them is in the deployment and movement phases. Not by using poor-quality weapons to maybe plink them from afar.

DarkHound wrote:If you ignore the transports then your opponent's troops will make it to you unscathed. To win, you must keep your opponent out of the places he wants to get to, away from the objectives he wants to take and out of his comfort zone.

If the only way to win a game is by scathing them before they arrive on your objectives, then you must have a really, really hard time against drop pods and outflankers and other things you CAN'T scathe before they arrive.

Wrexasaur wrote:I actually disagree with you here. I feel that the main strength of a transport in general, is it's ability to deliver units to their objectives faster and more reliably than they could do otherwise.

I totally agree with this. The important thing to remember is that it's what you do to those units your opponent is bringing that's important, whatever their means of conveyance. Which brings me to...

DarkHound wrote:While his infantry stay inside the transport they are safe from harm, but exit it and they are vulnerable to you.

Wrexasaur wrote:With transports, they are completely invulnerable to S3 firepower, and S4 firepower will rarely be useful either. Even S5 firepower will have a really hard time against AV11, you really need S6+ weaponry to deal with transports. To summarize, AV is a direct counter to S3 weapons, nearly invulnerable to S4 weapons in small numbers, and it only really needs to worry about S6+ weaponry.

Yes, transports make things immune to small arms fire so long as they are in the transport. Therefore, of course you need to blow up the transports to get at the troops inside.

The question is, "what is the best way to do this?"

One way of handling this is taking lots of long-ranged weapons. The problem with this is that they don't destroy transports all that well, especially for their points. This means you need to pay a premium to stop them when they're way over there. Furthermore, once you've got them out of their transport way over there, they are vulnerable to small arms fire, but no small arms fire even shoots that far (so they're still immune to it). Generally speaking, most long-ranged guns are also not the best against the occupants of transports either.

Another way of handling this it taking lots of short-ranged weapons. These weapons are cheaper, and much more effective at blowing the transports up. Furthermore, short ranged weapons are generally pretty good at killing the stuff that was riding in the transports (cf. flamers, demo charges, etc.). This is a way to effectively kill stuff, and is cheap enough to allow you even more guns to even MORE effectively kill stuff.

Now, the problem with the short-ranged option is that it's short ranged. This isn't a problem, however, as the transports need to get close to you in order to win the game. Therefore, the only time that the short-ranged problem is a problem is when you're winning games.

As such, we look at two possible paradigms for dealing with transports, a high-cost, low-effective, long-ranged way, and a low-cost, high-effective, short-ranged way.

Personally, I'd rather be effective when dealing with transports.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:
Raiders 12" and fire all guns. Nasty innards

Wave Serpents 12" and fire important gun Nasty innards

Razorbacks 6" and fire only gun Nasty innards

Dual heavy weapon rhinos 0", you caught me...

Yeah, but these are tanks that happen to have dudes strapped to them.

Either they sit back and shoot, in which case we're talking about "dealing with tanks" rather than "dealing with transports", or they're moving forward to transport their cargo, in which case their firepower is greatly reduced (usually to zero), at which point my transport advise makes sense, as well as my not worrying about their firepower.

Ailaros wrote:I'm talking about limiting yourself to only taking weapons which are effective at what they shoot against. Taking more effective weapons rather than fewer so that you can take less effective ones, produces better results.

What would convince you that taking effective weapons is a good thing?

Effective weapons are effective. Just a summary of what you are suggesting here.

Lashed out? You called yourself confused, I was simply trying to help explain why. Lesson learned.

I suggest taking the time to review your future posts, and edit them to avoid causing confusion in the future. If I am not mistaken, your opinions have completely changed, and the rest of this specific post actually makes a good deal of sense. Thank you.

I have repeatedly stated that I am not trying to push one single style. I have repeatedly stated that lots of styles can work.

What more must I say to convince you that I'm not pushing just one style of play?

I have already gone over this point, and I will do so one more time. Effective weapons are effective, followed by repeated suggestions that melta guns/bombs, are pretty much all that you need; throw in one or two artillery pieces, that was the entirety of most of your points.

Well, if you need personal experience to believe in something, that's not something I can supply in a tactics forum.

I suggest that drop pods are extremely uncommon, and you reply with this. How many times have you played against an army with drop pods? I can present my encounters with drop pods, only using my fingers to represent each encounter. Less than a 10, more than 5. I have yet to play anyone on Vassal using drop-pods, besides. I remember seeing one or two DP armies on Vassal, and perhaps a dozen or so in stores/gaming areas.

Once again, I wonder where this comes from. I am an ardent supporter of mobility. At no point have I said that mobility is stupid.

Several times you have suggested that 3 inches doesn't matter. I am not going to quote.

Frankly, fractions of an inch matter, and they can matter enough for you to consistently lose games by underestimating that. Micro-wars are one of the coolest parts of this game.

The point that I've been making is that mobility is only useful inasmuch as it wins you games. To win games, your opponent needs to bring their transports to you. You can either approach this fact by expensive, low-effectiveness means by blowing their transports up way over there, or you can handle both the transports and their cargo with cheaper, high-effectiveness means when they come to you. If they don't come to you, they lose games. If they lose the game, then why does it matter if the transports were always out of melta range?

WWx3= 48-72 S6 shots, over the course of 2-3 turns.
FDx5= 5-10 S8 Ap1 shots, over the course of 1-2 turns.

You need to spam meltas to use them, MM have a 24" range, Asscans 24" as well. Get one of those and put it on a mobile platform, then compare it in the same games to what your meltas are actually accomplishing. Taking a transport on turns 1-3, is much better than taking out on turns 3-5. Along with hitting earlier, ranged weaponry will hit for longer on average.

You keep making the point along the lines of, "it doesn't matter, because I will shoot them eventually". If that has actually worked for you, and you 1-2 shots per squad is as effective as you are suggesting, great!. I have not experienced that, and single shot weapons sitting in cover will get shot at, beyond their range.

1-2 ft weapon army, vs. 1-4 ft weapon army. Not hard to figure out what is going to happen if the short ranged army isn't constantly moving forward.

Instead, my point is that transports should be stopped with mobility. You can outflank dudes into side armor. You can deepstrike meltaguns (or whatever) through a variety of means. You can take objectives and force him to come to you. You can put your own, high quality weapons in transports. There are lots and lots of ways to handle transports, it's just that they way you handle them is in the deployment and movement phases. Not by using poor-quality weapons to maybe plink them from afar.

'Poor/High quality', and 'Effective' weapons. What does that mean? Seriously.

Both outflanking and deepstriking are notoriously unreliable, especially if you need to be within one foot (6 inches to make full use...) to use your main weapons. This is basic stuff.

DarkHound wrote:If you ignore the transports then your opponent's troops will make it to you unscathed. To win, you must keep your opponent out of the places he wants to get to, away from the objectives he wants to take and out of his comfort zone.

If the only way to win a game is by scathing them before they arrive on your objectives, then you must have a really, really hard time against drop pods and outflankers and other things you CAN'T scathe before they arrive.

Drop pods= Staying in reserves, forcing as many DPs to land before you engage. You can totally own DP armies given the right tactics.
Outflankers= Stay in the center, or come in from reserves. Outflanking armies are generally toting low strength weaponry, aside specific combos like Snikrot/1-2 Biker WB. Bringing in one melta shot, is not a scary thing to most players. Bringing in 4 squads with one melta shot a piece, isn't much scarier.

Yes, transports make things immune to small arms fire so long as they are in the transport. Therefore, of course you need to blow up the transports to get at the troops inside.

The question is, "what is the best way to do this?"

One way of handling this is taking lots of long-ranged weapons. The problem with this is that they don't destroy transports all that well, especially for their points. This means you need to pay a premium to stop them when they're way over there. Furthermore, once you've got them out of their transport way over there, they are vulnerable to small arms fire, but no small arms fire even shoots that far (so they're still immune to it). Generally speaking, most long-ranged guns are also not the best against the occupants of transports either.

EML have worked pretty well in that respect, for me at least. Damn well actually, 12 hits per template is a devastating way to wipe clumped swarm units that just lost their transport. On a second point, no small arms fire being able to shoot it, precludes (given that it means immunity by your standards, to not be shot part of the game) that melta present no threat to anything. On the other hand, you could mean that only tanks need to move towards objectives, and infantry can teleport there at some point... or something.

Another way of handling this it taking lots of short-ranged weapons. These weapons are cheaper, and much more effective at blowing the transports up. Furthermore, short ranged weapons are generally pretty good at killing the stuff that was riding in the transports (cf. flamers, demo charges, etc.). This is a way to effectively kill stuff, and is cheap enough to allow you even more guns to even MORE effectively kill stuff.

Infantry are immune to short ranged weapons because they can teleport, we already discussed this.

Your definition of cheap ignores what a weapon is attached to. I will continue to use WW/FD as examples, because they are among the best examples for their respective roles.

WW cost= 1/2 weapon, 1/2 platform, 8 shots per turn, or for a little more investment in weapons (and a different type of AI/AT), 2 templates.
FD cost= 1/2 weapon, 1/2 platform, 1 shot per turn... that's it.

Now to compare the squads.
WW cost= 180 points w/ S. lasers, 24 shots per turn.
FD cost= 180 points w/ bare-bones WS, 5 shots per turn.

The difference is quite clear, and when you bring in other factors it only becomes clearer. Short ranged weapons like meltas, are great as combi-weapons, because you only need one shot most games; the difference is that one shot is more of a safety than anything else. If you are getting overrun by tanks at the end of the game, it is probably because you relied too much on short ranged guns.

Now, the problem with the short-ranged option is that it's short ranged. This isn't a problem, however, as the transports need to get close to you in order to win the game. Therefore, the only time that the short-ranged problem is a problem is when you're winning games.

Alternatively, they can sit back with their extra range, and just shoot at your for three turns. Your investment in meltas just became a detriment to your army. It doesn't matter if they roll in on turn 4 en masse, if you can't shoot your meltas because they have been shot off of the board. Now your army has no AT, and your AI weaponry is sitting around wondering why it was there in the first place.

It is better to take a few transports down early, breaking the plans of your opponent, and allowing your AI to be useful in the event that the contents of those transports start running at you. Then your use of a few meltas, not melta-spam, can take shots at things that are a threat mid to late game. They won't get overrun, and the rest of your army can be of use.

Alternatively.

As such, we look at two possible paradigms for dealing with transports, a high-cost, low-effective, long-ranged way, and a low-cost, high-effective, short-ranged way.

Personally, I'd rather be effective when dealing with transports.

This bit sounds like a sales pitch.

I'm going to circumvect the massive tug-of-war going on to try and put forward my opinion on how to deal with transports as a BA player (rather than whether or not you should deal with transports as a Guard player, which seems to be the meat of this thread).

As BAs, you have a number of ways to deal with transports. Razorbacks with assault cannons, deep-striking Assault Squads with a meltagun/inferno pistol, drop-podding Dreadnoughts. All of these and many more will shred AV11+ and, due to your Marines' natural toughness, should be durable enough to withstand the return fire.

You may want to purchase a few suicide Assault Squads, use DoA to get to within melta range, and once they've flayed the transport their job is now 'done'. If they die, it doesn't matter, as that unit now has to walk the entire table instead of zoom across it in a metal coffn. MM Dreads are also awesome at this, as their AV12 makes them impervious to most return fire, and your opponent *cannot* ignore a Dreadnought stomping around his lines.

Ultimately, you should be using the BAs natural speed to mitigate the otherwise short range of the most effective tank-busting weaponry. Fast assault cannon Baals and Razorbacks will tear the vast majority of vehicles a new one.

Hope this helps.

L. Wrex

On "Dealing with tanks" vs. "Dealing with transports":

This distinction is pure semantics. The fact is, that if you've got weapons to deal with light armor that is closing with you, you've got weapons to deal with light armor that isn't.

Razorbacks, War Walkers, Land Speeders, Imperial Guard artillery, gunboat Chimeras, Dreadnaughts of various types, Whirlwinds, Side Armor on Predators, Sentinels (in the off chance), Vendettas, Wave Serpent, and Falcons are all units that might not close with you, are vulnerable to light anti-tank, and can still help your opponent win if staying outside of melta range. In combination, they can also be enough of them that your heavy anti-tank weapons can't get the job done. Lots of armies, however, have Scatter Lasers/ Multilasers/ Autocannons/ Missile Launchers/ Assault Cannons (if on fast chassis) that can get this job done, and still be effective against the guys inside.

edited for spelling

Well put BP.

Ailaros is providing some of the worst advice I've ever seen on the internet. As much as I would love for his arguments to be true (as a tyranid player), it is simply absurd. Long range shooting is a *must*. You will never get through Imperial Guard barrages, Eldar 36" vehicle movement, DE raider spam, BA/SW tank/razor spam, etc without long range shooting.

Please, don't bring any long range shooting to kill transports. That means all my monstrous creatures will get to walk freely up the board and munch you.

Night Lords wrote:Ailaros is providing some of the worst advice I've ever seen on the internet.

He admitted to not even using chimeras, then told someone to use dual heavy flamers on their chimeras!

Biophysical...

People, stop feeding the troll, Ailros has no leg to stand on in this, every single thing he has said is flawed for the most part ...

murdog wrote:Well put BP.

Thanks, I just call it like I see it.

I'll add that these sorts of weapons have another utility, particularly in the imperial guard: mopping up. After really tough units take some high strength low AP templates, there's often not many guys left. I pretty frequently see these small 2-3 man units skulk around in cover and spread out so you can't get much more in the way of template hits. Occasionally they will have a character with an invulnerable save left, and attempt to hit something in close combat late in the game. Occasionally it is a small unit of tough models like bikes. In either scenario, blasts or high strength/low AP weapons don't really cut it because they tend to get very few hits or very few shots, so you often can't get enough wounds through the cover save to matter. A few autocannons or multilasers, however, don't really care about cover, and get the same number of wounds on a few models as they do on a lot of models. They also do better against higher toughness (5 or 6) than straight anti-infantry weapons. The range is also important, because not infrequently, these small remnants will be sitting on objectives that you can't easily get to.

Wrexasaur wrote:Taking a transport on turns 1-3, is much better than taking out on turns 3-5.

Why? You've disposed of your opponent's wrapper before they were going to throw it away anyways, but the actual unit is still there.

Furhtermore, you have to pay lot of points in order to gain this rather slight advantage. Points which could have been spent efficiently destroying the actual unit once it arrived.

Wrexasaur wrote:Along with hitting earlier, ranged weaponry will hit for longer on average.
...
'Poor/High quality', and 'Effective' weapons. What does that mean? Seriously.

To me, a long-range anti transport weapon is only effective if it stops your opponent from delivering it's cargo before its too late.

As the math shows that few long-ranged weapons can do this, in order to make said weapons effective you need to take a lot of them. This means you need to spend WAY more points than the cost of the transport. Once again, points that could be spent on weapons that kill things dead in a single shot.

Wrexasaur wrote:You can totally own DP armies given the right tactics.

Likewise you can totally own transport armies (or any mobility) with the right tactics.

Wrexasaur wrote:Not hard to figure out what is going to happen if the short ranged army isn't constantly moving forward.

It doesn't matter if they roll in on turn 4 en masse, if you can't shoot your meltas because they have been shot off of the board.

Firstly, you don't have to constantly be moving forward, because the transports have to move towards you. If they're not, you win, so what's the bother?

If your crucial units are dying before they have the chance to do damage, that's your failure as a list-builder or a field commander, not something that's somehow wrong with the weapons your troops are carrying.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Ultimately, you should be using the BAs natural speed to mitigate the otherwise short range of the most effective tank-busting weaponry.

I highly agree.

Mobility definitely helps get effective weapons with short ranges on targets.

Biophysical wrote:On "Dealing with tanks" vs. "Dealing with transports":

This distinction is pure semantics.

Except that it isn't. The point of tanks (and all that other support craft you mention) is to stay as far away from everything as possible and shoot its guns at stuff. The point of transports is to get as close to your opponent's stuff as possible.

As the ONLY disadvantage of the most effective weapons is range, your opponent moving towards you or away from you is an important difference, not a meaningless semantic.

Plus, as Lycaeus notes, you can always put your short-ranged, effective guns on high-mobility platforms of your own. Against transports, however, this is much less necessary.

Night Lords wrote:You will never get through Imperial Guard barrages, Eldar 36" vehicle movement, DE raider spam, BA/SW tank/razor spam, etc without long range shooting.

Gunlines are a thing of the past, and at some point you will undoubtedly face a player who is smart with mobility and makes your long-range guns much less relevant than you'd hope.

Long range weapons are A way to handle those things, but you have to pay a lot for weapons which are expensive for what they do. There are several other solutions, though, like mechanized lists, drop pod lists, etc. etc. that bring enough mobility so as not to require long range guns to handle every threat.

Night Lords wrote:Please, don't bring any long range shooting to kill transports.That means all my monstrous creatures will get to walk freely up the board and munch you.

Please get cocky and walk your monstrous creatures up the board so I can kill them in a single plasma barrage.

I'm surprised you're afraid of long ranged guns given how few wounds they put out.

To the OP. BA have one of the better anti-transport options around -- fast pred w/ AC/2LC. Take two, make good target priority choices, use terrain against the mech-rush, have back-up in the form or melta or prefarably other long range weaponry (razors, tacs, raven).

As far as 'ignoring' transports, that isn't generally wise. What you should not be going for or thinking you need to do is shut them all down. BA is just not the army that will do that. Luckily you shouldn't need to, as you can have a decent amount of close combat and close range firepower and still have decent shooting to boot.

Ailaros wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Taking a transport on turns 1-3, is much better than taking out on turns 3-5.

Why? You've disposed of your opponent's wrapper before they were going to throw it away anyways, but the actual unit is still there.

Furhtermore, you have to pay lot of points in order to gain this rather slight advantage. Points which could have been spent efficiently destroying the actual unit once it arrived.

Define "a lot of points". Most heavy weapons cost about as much as a meltagun or plasma gun. The advantage in destroying a transport is two-fold. 1.) It reduces the mobility option of the unit, and the ability of the transport to contest objects/block lanes of fire/movement. You clearly don't care about these things, however, so lets look at... 2.) It allows your anti-infantry weapons to attack the contents of the transport sooner. Weapons that uselessly patter off transport hulls are doing nothing for multiple turns if you wait to engage until your short range weapons destroy the transport. Talk about inefficient and ineffective.

Ailaros wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Along with hitting earlier, ranged weaponry will hit for longer on average.
...
'Poor/High quality', and 'Effective' weapons. What does that mean? Seriously.

To me, a long-range anti transport weapon is only effective if it stops your opponent from delivering it's cargo before its too late.

As the math shows that few long-ranged weapons can do this, in order to make said weapons effective you need to take a lot of them. This means you need to spend WAY more points than the cost of the transport. Once again, points that could be spent on weapons that kill things dead in a single shot.

I'd be interested to see what you mean by "way more points". You're already taking squads with meltaguns. The cost of, say, four heavy weapons in four squads (depending on army) is between nothing and 80 points. We'll assume these four squads already have meltaguns, because they're awesome. No matter the army, this addition of points doesn't get you more than one durable meltagun. You don't get extra melta slots just because you didn't take the heavy weapon. Let's be conservative and say that each heavy weapon only gets two good rounds of shooting in a game. You're suggesting that it's better to get 1 more melta gun, getting 1 or 2 shots in a game, for the same points as it would take to get 8 shots of heavy weapons.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:On "Dealing with tanks" vs. "Dealing with transports":

This distinction is pure semantics.

Except that it isn't. The point of tanks (and all that other support craft you mention) is to stay as far away from everything as possible and shoot its guns at stuff. The point of transports is to get as close to your opponent's stuff as possible.

As the ONLY disadvantage of the most effective weapons is range, your opponent moving towards you or away from you is an important difference, not a meaningless semantic.

Plus, as Lycaeus notes, you can always put your short-ranged, effective guns on high-mobility platforms of your own. Against transports, however, this is much less necessary.

I believe your are incorrect on the point of transports. Against some armies, transports let you get close, against others, they let you fire, then leave, against all armies, they serve to protect the troops inside them. 4th edition made transports deathboxes, but we play 5th, and vehicles are tough. If the vehicle isn't dead, the troops can't be shot at unless your opponent allows it. This is your biggest logical flaw. It is imporant so I'll clarify below.

If you have anti-transport only at short range, you sacrifice several turns of engaging those transports. That means that when the opponent gets close to you, you have must expend effort killing the transport before you expend effort killing the passengers. If you kill the transport even one turn earlier, it is one extra turn you have to shoot at the passengers with all available units. You have to compress 3 or 4 turns of killing things into 2 or 3 turns. Furthermore, to a good player, transports are useful after they deploy their cargo. You suggest they are throwaway, and that you do so suggests you don't play against smart opponents. They can contest objectives or block lines of sight, also tank shock, and very occasionally put an odd wound out with weapons fire. If you wait to kill the transports, you are forced to choose between killing transports and cargo with your units. One probably chooses cargo in this case, because cargo kills and often scores. I can speak from experience (on both ends) that live transports at the end of a game, contesting objectives, protecting scoring units, and tank shocking opposing troops off objectives change losses to draws and draws to wins.

You may not agree with my assessment of the cost of meltas vs. anti-transport weapons. This is fair if you had some different scenario in mind, so I have a request. Pick an army, pick a unit or group of units that provide effective anti-transport power, and propose an alternative unit or group of units using your proposed doctrine that will deal with transports and their contents at close range. I'm interested to see what your doctrine proposes in specifics instead of vague generalities.

for crying out loud, why are you still feeding the troll? The guy advocates dual HFs on chimeras...seriously

1.) I've never seem him advocate dual HF chimeras.
2.) While I believe Ailaros is mistaken and, perhaps, stubborn, he is not 100% off-base, and makes enough genuine points at various times that I don't think he's picking this one topic to be a troll about.

I doubt Ailaros is trolling, just to be clear.

As I mentioned earlier, it seems like he has some ideas about the game that myself and many others completely disagree with. If we were in a store having this conversation, I would challenge Ailaros to a set of 3 matches in which he could bring 3 seperate armies (one for each match) of different codices, against my one army. I welcome someone to challenge him through Vassal, I will pass on that one though.

Bottom line is he would not be allowed to bring long-ranged AT, while I (or anyone) would. I have a very hard time thinking that he would do very well with anything besides armies like Mech-Orks (who don't have access to much Lr-AT anyway, meaning, he can't use Lootas). I call a clear 2/3 wins in my favor. My opinion, and one not far from taking all 3 games.

I would actually like to hear a bit more input from you on this tedurur, you must have something else to add.

actually I think the OPs question have been adequatly answered and since I dont play BA I have no doubt that there are more suitable people that can give him advice on exactly what units to take. I probably shouldnt have raved on about Arilios being a troll but when someone is giving crappy advice to a newbie and then refuse to admit being wrong when proven so by alot of people and sound arguments something just strikes a nerve.

I've got a feeling that Ailaros plays like a WW1 commander, lots of dudes, artilary but not much eles in the ways of heavys.
Now I'm not to fond of these kind of tactics as they were out dated during the grate war as they are in the 40K universe, trench warfare isn't war, its massed mechnized murder. The Somme and Passiondalle being example from WW1 and Army'getting'it ( the Ork name ) and Cadia are 40K examples. Not much is happing on those worlds in the way of a brake threw.

To the OP, try using ML Devistators or AC Preds and see how that works for you

Well... in a certain point of view, Ailaros is sparking a great discussion ... even if most of it is a responce to how 'off' his ideas about 40K are.

My first responce to this thread was: "Dear Nurgle..."

Anyway, about the Long-range AT. If we are talking about a 'Balanced' Balanced list then yes.
In my experience of running a biker list... I replaced long range AT with faster closing speed. It's been working fine so far, but make no mistake, the longer ranged AT is missed.

How to deal with transports? You deal with them with whatever you have available. There's no real suggestions other than just doing it.

If you have the AT guns, use them.
If you need to get close to use them, get close.
If you have to hit them with your (str 4+) hands, then get there.

Obviously multiple charges are best. Don't foget about krak grenades and the like, etc.

I know it's not advisable, but I generally just take the brunt of fire from the squad inside forced out of their rides.

-Sanct.

murdog wrote:I just accept the fact that I'm not going to kill every vehicle every turn, and having a mix of weapons ensures I can usually take out one or more vehicles at range per turn, depending on opponent's disposition (AV values), deployment (facings), terrain (cover/LoS) and dice (rolling one's on the damage chart with lascannon pens ).

Anyone tried 4x GL's in a PCS with a multilaser chim? 7 s6 shots at 24" on the move (for increased flank shot potential) seems like a pretty good platform for anti-transport. I brought one along the last couple of battles but it was too busy shooting at the squads that had fallen out of the transports that my lascannons, missile launchers and autocannons had killed.

If you're going for the crapton of str 6 24" shots, might I suggest the Primaris Psyker? His power will deal an average of 7 shots, and for 70 points, he's not bad. Same cost as that Company Command Squad, except on his own he has almost twice the shots.
I know its not the most competitive option, but I usually keep him with a x3 GL vet squad in a chimmy. An average of 13 str 6 shots a turn will mess stuff up.

Wrexasaur wrote:As I mentioned earlier, it seems like he has some ideas about the game that myself and many others completely disagree with. If we were in a store having this conversation, I would challenge Ailaros to a set of 3 matches in which he could bring 3 seperate armies (one for each match) of different codices, against my one army. I welcome someone to challenge him through Vassal, I will pass on that one though.

I would. The links are in my signature.

A third party could make the lists.

Ailaros wrote:

Nantukoshade wrote:Aside from everything said above, as far as points are concerned, I field free ML's in my tac squads, as the open up transports with krak, then they get killy on the squad inside with frag. All for free...as cheap as it gets.

Firstly, a single missile launcher isn't all that likely to stop a transport if your opponent is correctly using SMF or smoke. You sort of get what you pay for.

Secondly, the points cost may be free, but you're still paying in that your tac squad had to sit on its butts for a whole turn to squeeze off a missile shot.

The thing is, if my opponent is all holed up in transports, I feel perfectly fine squeezing off a missile shot, because they have nothing else to shoot at. I can worry about making objective runs later on. Especially if I cripple an opponents transport. Also, I know that generals usually have contingency plans. Forcing them to switch to that means that their main plan has been disrupted. The thing is, contingency plans are back up, because their main plans are better, so forcing them to take a worse course of action seems good to me.

tedurur wrote:but when someone is giving crappy advice to a newbie and then refuse to admit being wrong when proven so by alot of people and sound arguments something just strikes a nerve.

Well then feel free to engage in intelligent discourse on the matter, as have your peers.

Ribon Fox wrote:I've got a feeling that Ailaros plays like a WW1 commander, lots of dudes, artilary but not much eles in the ways of heavys.

That is happenstantially correct, but irrelavent. My arguments are based on what guns to use. Mass-charging 20 meltaguns like I do is A way of delivering close-range anti-transport death. You can also take 10 sternguard with combi-meltas in a drop pod, or high-strength tyrannid baddies with wings, or lootas in a battlewagon.

Biophysical wrote:
Define "a lot of points". Most heavy weapons cost about as much as a meltagun or plasma gun.

But if weapon 1 is half as effective as weapon 2, then you need to take twice as many. More importantly, you need to spend twice as much on carriers just to do the same job as weapon 1 with a single carrier.

Biophysical wrote:I believe your are incorrect on the point of transports. Against some armies, transports let you get close, against others, they let you fire, then leave, against all armies, they serve to protect the troops inside them.

Biophysical wrote:You suggest they are throwaway, and that you do so suggests you don't play against smart opponents. They can contest objectives or block lines of sight, also tank shock, and very occasionally put an odd wound out with weapons fire.

Biophysical wrote:1.) It reduces the mobility option of the unit, and the ability of the transport to contest objects/block lanes of fire/movement.

To what end? If he's keeping up higher mobility or blocking lanes of fire, but he's not completing objectives, then who cares?

In the case of tank shocking, or contesting objectives, or blocking movement, this is assuming that the transport in question is very close to my troops, who will have little problem whatsoever blowing it up with meltaguns or krak grenades, or whatever.

Biophysical wrote:
2.) It allows your anti-infantry weapons to attack the contents of the transport sooner.

It doesnt' matter WHEN you attack the contents of the transport, it matters that you make them dead. Attacking guardsmen coming out of a chimera a turn later doesn't seem to matter to me if giving them that extra turn means I get to knock out all 10 at once with a flamer.

Biophysical wrote:You don't get extra melta slots just because you didn't take the heavy weapon.

No, but you need to spend points on them (and, depending on the specifics, the carrier). Those points can be spent on something else.

Biophysical wrote:That means that when the opponent gets close to you, you have must expend effort killing the transport before you expend effort killing the passengers.

Right, it's called combined arms. At no point would I suggest that the SAME unit needs to be able to handle both transport and cargo.

If you dont' have a unit that's good against the cargo alongside a unit that is good against the transport, that means that your units aren't supporting each other well enough - a problem that can be fixed in the movement and list-building parts of the game.

Biophysical wrote: Pick an army, pick a unit or group of units that provide effective anti-transport power, and propose an alternative unit or group of units using your proposed doctrine that will deal with transports and their contents at close range. I'm interested to see what your doctrine proposes in specifics instead of vague generalities.

Sure, so take a guard 3x autocannon HWS against a guard 3x meltagun SWS.

The math of a BS3 autocannon means that you need to shoot at a AV12 transport for 20 turns with a single autocannon to stop it. In this case, you get 3, so a single autocannon HWS takes about 6-7 turns to reliably blow up the transport.

Of course, what you're really looking to do is down it by turn 2, not turn 7, which means that you need to buy 4 of them in order to achieve the desired effect. Not only does this create some cluttered deployment zones, but it also costs 300 points.

Meanwhile, 3x meltaguns will take down that transport in 2 turns. It costs 65 points to do the same job that it takes autocannons 300 points to do. This means that you can take 2 more meltagun squads and have triple the anti-transport power for the same number of points.

Furthermore, those meltaguns are also good against real tanks and heavier transports (like land raiders), while allowing you to insta-kill T4 multi-wounds and putting wounds on a MC faster.

This is an examle from the guard, as I don't know other armies' points costs. That said, I know that every army gets effective anti-transport weapons, so I know it's possible with them as well.

Wrexasaur wrote: If we were in a store having this conversation, I would challenge Ailaros to a set of 3 matches in which he could bring 3 seperate armies (one for each match) of different codices, against my one army. I welcome someone to challenge him through Vassal, I will pass on that one though.

I'd like a game too, but unfortunately this would tell us more about how well we move and deploy rather than the effectiveness of certain weapons over others.

Sanctjud wrote:I replaced long range AT with faster closing speed. It's been working fine so far, but make no mistake, the longer ranged AT is missed.

Missed, but still working fine.

I mean, if all we need here is a single example of a only-good-weapons army beating a transport army, click here. Of course, I sort of question the value of specific examples like this, as there are SO many complicating factors, and "What if?"s.

Sanctjud wrote:How to deal with transports? You deal with them with whatever you have available.

Yeah, but you can stack things in your favor by making more better guns available.

So... Alairos is telling us he plays backyard guard with no heavy weapons, only specials... on foot... and that he would take dual HF's on his chimeras?

Sure, so take a guard 3x autocannon HWS against a guard 3x meltagun SWS.

The math of a BS3 autocannon means that you need to shoot at a AV12 transport for 20 turns with a single autocannon to stop it. In this case, you get 3, so a single autocannon HWS takes about 6-7 turns to reliably blow up the transport.

Of course, what you're really looking to do is down it by turn 2, not turn 7, which means that you need to buy 4 of them in order to achieve the desired effect. Not only does this create some cluttered deployment zones, but it also costs 300 points.

Meanwhile, 3x meltaguns will take down that transport in 2 turns. It costs 65 points to do the same job that it takes autocannons 300 points to do. This means that you can take 2 more meltagun squads and have triple the anti-transport power for the same number of points.

Furthermore, those meltaguns are also good against real tanks and heavier transports (like land raiders), while allowing you to insta-kill T4 multi-wounds and putting wounds on a MC faster.

This is an examle from the guard, as I don't know other armies' points costs. That said, I know that every army gets effective anti-transport weapons, so I know it's possible with them as well.

God you love living in your fool's paradise eh? I think we've lost him gentlemen. This is watered down, simplistic gak you're throwing at us!

OK, I'm going to wade in on this one...

Transports, by their very definition, are mostly used for one thing and one thing only; the delivery of their cargo. In light of this, it can be argued that that 35pt Rhino is not actually 35pts. It actually costs 35+235 (using a Khorne Beserker example here). That one Rhino now has an incredible value attached to it that, if shut down for one or two turns, throws a rather large spanner into the works of my enemy. I would advocate that it is FAR more beneficial to allocate some of your points reserve to ensure that a (now) 270pt Rhino gets shut down rather than simply grant said unit free reign around the board.

On that basis spending a bunch of points on autocannons can be beneficial, as you only have to stun that Rhino before the remainder of those heavy weapons target something else; delaying your enemy by a turn at least.

As previously stated, if you allow your enemy's vehicles to trundle around unapposed you are handing over the initiative on a platter, allowing him to strike as and where he pleases whilst you scuttle your SWS around desperately trying to get to within 6".

As also previously stated, transports have a use even after they drop their contents off. LOS blocking, tank shocking, objective contesting. All of these you will be powerless to stop, as you'll be tied up in a huge muti-assault with all those squads being given free journeys to the front line.

Ailaros: I regularly diagree with you, however even in the autocannon debates your logic hasn't been this....weird. Your actually advising people to not worry about transports until they get to within 6" (melta range) because thats the most effective way to despatch them?! If a transport gets to within 6" it just did EXACTLY what your opponent wanted it to do, and now he can let your meltas blow it up, safe in the knowledge that unless you have an exceptional shooting phase, some of his assault forces will remain to tear you a new one in his turn.

You've always been a strong believer in effectiveness and to some extent I would agree that a meltagun IS very effective, but you are using an offensive weapon in a defensive manner. Rather than being pro-active and finding ways to isolate his units on his side of the board, you are waiting until he gets himself into short-range, which is pretty much exactly where he wants to be.

I just cannot, cannot see the logic behind what you are saying. I see the purpose (bring weapons that are good at what they do), but by denying yourself longer-range alternatives I just cannot see how you expect to face off against fast-moving assault heavy armies such as Orks or Wych Cult.

L. Wrexx

alairos wrote:
Please get cocky and walk your monstrous creatures up the board so I can kill them in a single plasma barrage.

I'm surprised you're afraid of long ranged guns given how few wounds they put out.

Except youre going to be getting eaten by the 100 smaller, faster bugs and then have to deal with full wound monsters in combat the next turn...great...?

I dont understand how they put out so few wounds when it is essentially hitting on 3's (or 4's if guard) and then a 2+. They wound more often than not.

Ailaros wrote:Sure, so take a guard 3x autocannon HWS against a guard 3x meltagun SWS.

The math of a BS3 autocannon means that you need to shoot at a AV12 transport for 20 turns with a single autocannon to stop it. In this case, you get 3, so a single autocannon HWS takes about 6-7 turns to reliably blow up the transport.

Of course, what you're really looking to do is down it by turn 2, not turn 7, which means that you need to buy 4 of them in order to achieve the desired effect. Not only does this create some cluttered deployment zones, but it also costs 300 points.

Meanwhile, 3x meltaguns will take down that transport in 2 turns. It costs 65 points to do the same job that it takes autocannons 300 points to do. This means that you can take 2 more meltagun squads and have triple the anti-transport power for the same number of points.

Furthermore, those meltaguns are also good against real tanks and heavier transports (like land raiders), while allowing you to insta-kill T4 multi-wounds and putting wounds on a MC faster.

This is an examle from the guard, as I don't know other armies' points costs. That said, I know that every army gets effective anti-transport weapons, so I know it's possible with them as well.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I had to point this bit out as a massive 'WTF!' popped into my head as a re-read it. First of all; you aren't taking into account the range of the guns in question. My autocannon HWS has an effective range 6 x greater than yours (42"-6"(melta range) = 36"). That, in essence, gives me 6 turns more shooting than your SWS. I don't know about you, but I just made my single autocannon HWS 6 x more likely to damage that vehicle before your meltaguns even get into melta range. I have now made my autocannon HWS worth 6 x what you pay for your SWS as I achieve exactly the same goals, much faster. Secondly, AV12 is simply not the most common form of armour you will face on the table. AV10-11 is. This also drastically improves the odds on the autocannon doing what it wants to do (stun, immobilise, wreck, destroy). Thirdly, transports do not have to be blown up. As I just said, a simple stun will do, and then I can focus my firepower elsewhere.

Sorry but what you have said above simply is NOT true.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex said what I wanted while being more polite and making more sense, more power to him.

Alairos is also forgetting more factors like:

Multiple units can be in multiple locations, and cannot simply be avoided, by the transport going somewhere else.

He is also assuming that what is in the transports is as weedy as a grot.

I would actually like to agree with Ailaros, and have previously considered putting together a melta-centric list. Lots and lots, and lots and lots... a whole bunch of FD, backed up by Sguardians. Stick the whole army in tanks, and drive around melting everything in sight.

The problem is the concept wasn't sound, it didn't work, and was little more than a joke in testing. I can do better with my Stealthdar list, and that one is mainly for fun.

I like meltas and they tend to be in every list I make, when possible. 20 meltas in one list, especially in the hands of what is mainly going to be a measly BS3 platform, is funny but not effective. "YAY! I can pop 3 LR a turn!" is just not a good enough reason for me, and that is the main benefit of having that many melta in the first place.

Sanctjud wrote:Well... in a certain point of view, Ailaros is sparking a great discussion ... even if most of it is a responce to how 'off' his ideas about 40K are.

Not really a discussion, more of a soap-opera

He sure is relentless though, I gave up on this "discussion" several pages ago, and he's still going strong, makes for an entertaining read

"If a transport gets to within 6" it just did EXACTLY what your opponent wanted it to do, and now he can let your meltas blow it up, safe in the knowledge that unless you have an exceptional shooting phase, some of his assault forces will remain to tear you a new one in his turn. "

this ^^^^
game. set. Match.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:So... Alairos is telling us he plays backyard guard with no heavy weapons, only specials... on foot... and that he would take dual HF's on his chimeras?

Could you please actually READ what I write before picking out a piece of it and pretending that I'm saying the opposite of what I said?

Night Lords wrote:Except youre going to be getting eaten by the 100 smaller, faster bugs and then have to deal with full wound monsters in combat the next turn...great...?

What part of me refusing to take crappy anti-transport weapons implies that I can't take down lots of little bugs?

Night Lords wrote:I dont understand how they put out so few wounds when it is essentially hitting on 3's (or 4's if guard) and then a 2+. They wound more often than not.

What kind of monstrous creatures are you playing with? It takes a guard autocannon 5 turns to put a single wound on a tervigon that sticks. Then they have 5 more...

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Multiple units can be in multiple locations, and cannot simply be avoided, by the transport going somewhere else.

This is just as true for squads with effective weapons as for those who don't.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:He is also assuming that what is in the transports is as weedy as a grot.

No, I'm assuming that the most damage you can do comes from short ranged weapons. Flamers do more damage per shot than heavy bolters (even if the latter shoot for several turns), along with things like plasma guns, demo charges, assaulting them, etc. etc.

It's not that the transportees are weak, it's that short ranged weapons are good.

Wrexasaur wrote:The problem is the concept wasn't sound, it didn't work, and was little more than a joke in testing.

I'm sorry it didn't work for you. Perhaps the reason had to do with that you only tried it once or twice and weren't serious about it.

Wrexasaur wrote:I like meltas and they tend to be in every list I make, when possible. 20 meltas in one list, especially in the hands of what is mainly going to be a measly BS3 platform, is funny but not effective.

If BS3 is the only thing that matters, then you're basically saying that the guard as an army are "funny but can't be effective".

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: First of all; you aren't taking into account the range of the guns in question. My autocannon HWS has an effective range 6 x greater than yours (42"-6"(melta range) = 36"). That, in essence, gives me 6 turns more shooting than your SWS.

What? This is assuming that the transport is just sitting still the entire game, and so are my meltaguns.

Transports have to come to you. How many turns do you think that will take? If they don't, then they're not completing objectives and they're losing, so what's the problem?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:I have now made my autocannon HWS worth 6 x what you pay for your SWS as I achieve exactly the same goals, much faster.

Wait, how? I mean, other than in the above situation which will never happen.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Secondly, AV12 is simply not the most common form of armour you will face on the table. AV10-11 is

But meltaguns also get better as the AV goes down at the same time that other guns do.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:In light of this, it can be argued that that 35pt Rhino is not actually 35pts. It actually costs 35+235 (using a Khorne Beserker example here)

You could argue this, if killing the transports killed all the beserkers inside.

As it is, berzerkers can still do a lot of damage, transport or not.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:That one Rhino now has an incredible value attached to it that, if shut down for one or two turns, throws a rather large spanner into the works of my enemy.

You're seeming to assume that once you destroy a transport, the unit inside is completely done. In actuality, all you're doing is changing him from going from 12" to 7"-12". If you're opponent can't handle a few fewer inches of movement without dying horribly, then they're awful with transport lists.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:As previously stated, if you allow your enemy's vehicles to trundle around unapposed you are handing over the initiative on a platter, allowing him to strike as and where he pleases whilst you scuttle your SWS around desperately trying to get to within 6".

Firstly, I'm not implying this. You could put your meltaguns on bikes, or deepstrike them, or put them in transports.

Secondly, as mentioned, if your opponent is flitsing around, they're not coming towards objective, and you win. Or they're coming towards the objectives, where my short-ranged won't need to run around chasing after them.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:I just cannot see how you expect to face off against fast-moving assault heavy armies

Because they need to come to me in order to win. I've faced off against several fast-moving armies before, and they've always gotten in range of my short-ranged guns.

Otherwise, if they just huddle in the corner out of range, they'd lose...

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:As also previously stated, transports have a use even after they drop their contents off.

Use for what end?

Plus, once they drop their cargo off near my stuff, they're dead, and won't be doing a whole lot, will they?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:If a transport gets to within 6" it just did EXACTLY what your opponent wanted it to do, and now he can let your meltas blow it up,

So?

When I fail to destroy my opponent's drop pod, I'm letting my opponent do EXACTLY what they want. Does this somehow mean I lose? Just because my opponent is able to move slightly faster doesn't mean I'm somehow screwed.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:safe in the knowledge that unless you have an exceptional shooting phase, some of his assault forces will remain to tear you a new one in his turn.

"exceptional"? I throw demo charges on them and they die. I throw demolisher rounds on them and they die. I throw death company at them and they die. There are SO MANY ways to kill your opponent's stuff at close range, you don't need to be exceptional.

A nitwit who doesn't seem to ever give up wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:He is also assuming that what is in the transports is as weedy as a grot.

No, I'm assuming that the most damage you can do comes from short ranged weapons. Flamers do more damage per shot than heavy bolters (even if the latter shoot for several turns), along with things like plasma guns, demo charges, assaulting them, etc. etc.

It's not that the transportees are weak, it's that short ranged weapons are good.

So... you kill the transport, then the units that may have "STRONG SHORT RANGE WEAPONS" are within 6" of your troops. Look you killed their 35-55 point transport, then they faceslam your more expensive unit. Assuming it even did destroy the transport.

I really think you're clutching at grass at this point.

Ailaros wrote:No, I'm assuming that the most damage you can do comes from short ranged weapons. Flamers do more damage per shot than heavy bolters (even if the latter shoot for several turns), along with things like plasma guns, demo charges, assaulting them, etc. etc.

It's not that the transportees are weak, it's that short ranged weapons are good.

'Good' is not synonymous with the 'pinnacle of all weapons that are available for use in the game'...
I am happy they work for you, if they happen to work for you, but your arguments are not convincing as a solid foundation for the tactics you suggest.

It seems like you're beginning to sound a bit like this...

Wrexasaur wrote:The problem is the concept wasn't sound, it didn't work, and was little more than a joke in testing.

I'm sorry it didn't work for you. Perhaps the reason had to do with that you only tried it once or twice and weren't serious about it.

The army was a joke, not the testing. I began to doubt the concept in general after just running basic Mhammer on the units, and the overall list. You're greatly exaggerating the soundness of your reasoning, as well as reverting back into misleading commentary. In short, it seems that you have gotten past ignoring, and moved onto constant repetition of the same flimsy logic. Your concepts have not changed, and you have made literally no modifications to your statements, you just move words around and repeat the same thing.

At this point I am not entirely sure I can take your posts seriously, they are no longer adding anything to this discussion.

Wrexasaur wrote:I like meltas and they tend to be in every list I make, when possible. 20 meltas in one list, especially in the hands of what is mainly going to be a measly BS3 platform, is funny but not effective.

If BS3 is the only thing that matters, then you're basically saying that the guard as an army are "funny but can't be effective".

You're simply not reading what I have written at this point, nor does it appear that you do so for many other posters.

BS3 is perfectly fine for multi-shot weapons, but I avoid using meltas with BS3, because I usually have a much better place to put it. You like meltas and spam them, which is something I consider a very bad plan. A fun army, but not one that is competitive to the point of significance. SoB can make pretty good use of meltas, but the best lists tend to not focus entirely on the melta, most likely because most everything is T3 and will get shot into pieces at range.

I don't know that much about SoB though, it would seem that they are one of the only armies that could pull anything like what you suggest.

I'll continue to read this thread, but it may have reached it's expiration date.

You'll have to excuse me because I'm not too keen on reading through this entire argument, but is the summary essentially:

Aliaros does not see the value of popping transports and chooses to ignore the problem until it is present and pressing matter? Instead focusing points that most people use long range AT into more bodies?

Everyone else is arguing that you should pop them with point invested in long range AT?

@ Sgt. Sunshine

At this point it is basically melta-spam vs. a sensible combination of many types of weapons.

I do not think meltas suck, quite the opposite actually. Spamming 20 of them just strikes me as completely silly. Some are arguing that more Lr-AV (AT, whatever, guns that pop vehicles at long ranges) equals more better, but for the most part no one has suggested that relying entirely on Lr-AV is a good idea either.

Mix your weapons up, and try to find the best combination. Different types of weapons fill different gaps, try to fill as many gaps as possible, without compromising the effectiveness of your list.

We are in permanent disagreement land now, and I don't think that Ailaros has any intent of trying to get us out of here...

Oh, well I mean I guess I can see the logic in spamming meltas...I just don't think it's very good logic. I mean vehicles tend to have weapons that have a longer range than 12 inches. Even if you have the objective they'll just whittle you down until there's only bob left and let's face it you don't want bob guarding your objective. We all know he's a bit of a chicken and once he sees a rhino coming up and doing a drive by with marines inside he's going to croak.

What a flamefest of a thread also quite alot of going on.

I can see what Ailros is saying- that if you have the tools to deal with what in the transports when they arrive, then you don't need to worry about blowing transport - which I'm happy with him saying. He does have a point there (Ailros does quite often, trying to find it can be the problem ). However -

Ailaros wrote:Why? You've disposed of your opponent's wrapper before they were going to throw it away anyways, but the actual unit is still there.

My Transports are not just wrappers. They are mobile wrappers, mobile wrappers with gunslits in them. If transports did 1 thing, 1) up forward towards enemy lines 2) deposit troops 3) ???? 4) Profit/victory!, then i agree with Ailros's logic. My transports games are Never so simple. The blocking of LOS/movement, bunkering up objectives, being able to regroup spread forces... Playing with my transports is the most complicated part of my turn i find The importance of that wrapper is this- my meltagunner can move 6" and shoot. My rhino can move 12", unload him 2" and shoot. I'm sorry, but adding 14" to my range is simply awesome, and being able to stop that is painful to my game plans- hence it hurts my ability to win- hence it helps you to win. Taking out transports at range means that transports point have been wasted AND that the owner must come up with a new plan for the unit inside.


In summary- I agree with Ailros. Having the tools to deal with what comes out of the transports is essential, but just as essential is the tools to stop some/all of those transports from coming, which forces the enemy to come peice meal.

Back to the original question-->How do you stop transports?

This is how I stop transports, as a BA player, without suiciding my melta squads into enemy territory.

Once the enemy mobility is neutralized, BA have an excellent advantage in this department.

360 points total, but, it stops the advance of a good chunk of the enemy, is also good against elite troops or monstrous creatures, and can tie up many units in CC.

Nice Dreads. How did you do the autocannons?

It looks like he used Aegis line Quad autocannons

yeah, looks right

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:So... you kill the transport, then the units that may have "STRONG SHORT RANGE WEAPONS" are within 6" of your troops.

But you get to shoot them with your short ranged weapons in the same turn you blow up their transports. It's not "you blow up their transports and they attack" it's "you blow up their transports and then attack them. the remnants then attack you back".

Wrexasaur wrote: You like meltas and spam them, which is something I consider a very bad plan. A fun army, but not one that is competitive to the point of significance.

Why is it bad? You're taking effective weapons and using them against their proper targets. I haven't really heard anything with regards to why it's worth it to pay a premium to stop your opponents transports over there other than some misguided fear that if you don't, you auto-lose, and if you do, you auto-win.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Aliaros does not see the value of popping transports and chooses to ignore the problem until it is present and pressing matter? Instead focusing points that most people use long range AT into more bodies?

Everyone else is arguing that you should pop them with point invested in long range AT?

The "Everyone else" is basically a correct assessment, although no one has really explained why their position is best, only that mine is silly.

As for mine, it would be more accurate to say that I ignore transports AT RANGE, because I know they have to come to me to win. The best weapons are short ranged, therefore I advocate taking the best weapons available, knowing that their chief disadvantage is actually ameliorated by my opponent.

Wrexasaur wrote:At this point it is basically melta-spam vs. a sensible combination of many types of weapons.

Actually, it's more of a taking a mix of good weapons vs. taking a mix of good weapons and bad weapons debate.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote: I mean vehicles tend to have weapons that have a longer range than 12 inches. Even if you have the objective they'll just whittle you down until there's only bob left and let's face it you don't want bob guarding your objective.

So this is one of the things you've missed by not reading. Transports need to come to you, which means that they're not actually whittling anything. If you're talking about other stuff than transports whittling you down, then take good guns to handle those other threats.

Jihallah wrote:My Transports are not just wrappers. They are mobile wrappers, mobile wrappers with gunslits in them. If transports did 1 thing, 1) up forward towards enemy lines 2) deposit troops 3) ???? 4) Profit/victory!, then i agree with Ailros's logic. My transports games are Never so simple. The blocking of LOS/movement, bunkering up objectives, being able to regroup spread forces... Playing with my transports is the most complicated part of my turn i find

So, if your transports are completing their objectives, they're moving towards my stuff. If they move towards my stuff, they're toast on a stick.

If they're NOT moving towards my stuff, they're not completing an objective, which means they're not taking actions which make them win the game. In which case, why should I care?

Jihallah wrote:In summary- I agree with Ailros. Having the tools to deal with what comes out of the transports is essential, but just as essential is the tools to stop some/all of those transports from coming, which forces the enemy to come peice meal.

Yes, but WHY do you need to take them out at range when you can take better weapons to kill them up close?

Just offing a transport here or there does not make you win. It just slows down some of their units a bit. Showing up not 100% at the same time does not automatically equal fail somehow. Likewise, if attacking all at once was a big deal, opponents can always slow their transports down a bit. In either case, it doesn't seem like you're really doing a whole lot to them, at least, not enough to justify the expense.

Ailaros wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:So... you kill the transport, then the units that may have "STRONG SHORT RANGE WEAPONS" are within 6" of your troops.

But you get to shoot them with your short ranged weapons in the same turn you blow up their transports. It's not "you blow up their transports and they attack" it's "you blow up their transports and then attack them. the remnants then attack you back"

Ok. They see you have nothing but melta guns.

Then they can EASILY disembark and fire/assault your lines without you doing jack.

Alternatively, they pop smoke, lookey 50% chance that melta you're using does nothing.

Also, look, a unit with one melta, 1/2 to hit. 1/12 to do nothing, 1/12 to glance. 10/12 to penetrate.

Then all you get is a little +1. Melta guns are not as amazing as you put them out to be, unless you're stuffing multiple meltas in squads, you're not reliably killing anything with guardsmen.

Assuming that you will have enough to outnumber them enough to have nothing but guard with meltas and flamers killing units as well as their transports is being dense. So, explain what you will use other than special weapons.

Transports, main function...:

"See those enemies? Build me something to get me from here to there unscathed..." Most armies transports have something in them that can handle those guardsmen in CC.

Vassal challenge issued about now-ish. Links in my signature.

I will totally watch that game.

Ailaros wrote:Actually, it's more of a taking a mix of good weapons vs. taking a mix of good weapons and bad weapons debate.

LOL. Meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas... meltas, flamer.

I think we have a different view of what counts as transports. I'm sure this has been covered before. If not I mean that your theory is taking into regards chimera like transports correct? I'm also including things like Razorbacks, Land Raiders, Vendettas, and other goodies. Yes, they may be tanks and flyers but anything that can hold a body is a transport in my mind.

Also, I'm not sure what you're defining as a "best" weapon. I think the plasma cannon is a pretty awesome weapon, but for point efficiency it isn't the best. In fact couldn't you consider the lascannon as up there in terms of "best" due to it's 48" range high strength and AP? These are just examples so I'm just wondering how you value a weapon as the "best" weapon.

I personally don't think there really is one as they all have something that makes them worth taking in different situations.

Oh, and the reason I support the other side of the fence and not yours is that your argument seems to be something along the lines of "I will only take rock and will be amazing at smashing all the scissors" while everyone else is essentially "why not take one of each and be average at smashing all of them equally?" I know this is probably not what you were aiming for, but at this point this is how I would dumb down the arguments.

However, due to the fact I'm too lazy to read the rest of the argument. I'll get too it sometime, but I feel like it's a lot of repetition.

EDIT: Forgot to mention this one thing. Firing at multiple ranges increases the probability of dealing with the problem earlier on. Trying to pop a transport at the last second is good and all, but if you fail you're screwed. No matter what you say the odds are there is still that chance of you not managing to pop it. Engaging targets earlier forces more rolls and a higher probability of raining on your opponent's parade without being...I guess I'll use the military term "Danger Close".

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:
Define "a lot of points". Most heavy weapons cost about as much as a meltagun or plasma gun.

But if weapon 1 is half as effective as weapon 2, then you need to take twice as many. More importantly, you need to spend twice as much on carriers just to do the same job as weapon 1 with a single carrier.

This isn't what I was saying. You've already bought the carriers, so you only need to spend ~10 points to get a heavy weapon also.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote: Pick an army, pick a unit or group of units that provide effective anti-transport power, and propose an alternative unit or group of units using your proposed doctrine that will deal with transports and their contents at close range. I'm interested to see what your doctrine proposes in specifics instead of vague generalities.

Sure, so take a guard 3x autocannon HWS against a guard 3x meltagun SWS.

The math of a BS3 autocannon means that you need to shoot at a AV12 transport for 20 turns with a single autocannon to stop it. In this case, you get 3, so a single autocannon HWS takes about 6-7 turns to reliably blow up the transport.

Of course, what you're really looking to do is down it by turn 2, not turn 7, which means that you need to buy 4 of them in order to achieve the desired effect. Not only does this create some cluttered deployment zones, but it also costs 300 points.

Meanwhile, 3x meltaguns will take down that transport in 2 turns. It costs 65 points to do the same job that it takes autocannons 300 points to do. This means that you can take 2 more meltagun squads and have triple the anti-transport power for the same number of points.

Furthermore, those meltaguns are also good against real tanks and heavier transports (like land raiders), while allowing you to insta-kill T4 multi-wounds and putting wounds on a MC faster.

This is an examle from the guard, as I don't know other armies' points costs. That said, I know that every army gets effective anti-transport weapons, so I know it's possible with them as well.

Please allow me to respectfully suggest that your calculator may need new batteries.

3 Autocannons: 6 shots * 50% hit rate * 33% penetration rate (vs armor 11) = 1. So 1 penetrating hit per 75 point squad is a reasonable expectation. Sometimes you'll get more, sometimes less. If armor is penetrated, results 2, 4, 5, and 6 stop the transport from moving. So the squad you described (somwhat similar to an autocannon Dreadnought) has about a 66% percent chance to do it's job each turn. Assume cover, and that's down to a 33% chance. You'll also get glancing hits, and odd turns of the dice can mean that weapon destroyed results do something for you also. Regardless, we'll run with the 33% effectiveness per squad. Take 3 squads for 225 points (although at this point you start shutting off areas where the opponent can get cover at all). Shut down 1 transport per turn. The opponent can hang out in the transport (good for you), or he can get out of the transport to run forward. Back to your turn, you now (on turn 2) get to pound that unit with long ranged fire that would not have been able to fire at enemy troops otherwise. Your autocannons move on to another transport, now much less likely to be in cover, and disable it for the turn (good chance of 2 transports disabled). Repeat with artillery.

225 points is pretty close to 4 infantry squads with meltas. You seem to be advocating special weapon squads with 3 meltas for 65 points, take three and 30 points for 195. 9 shots * 50* hit rate * 50% penetration rate (transports 13" away can still deliver assault troops, so no +d6) * 50% for cover (with no long range AT, smoke gets popped only when the transports move in) = a little bit better than 1 penetrating hit for your 9 squads of meltas (assuming 18 heavily armed guardsmen are still alive). 5/6 rolls on the chart are good, thanks to the AP1. Congratulations, you've done slightly better in one turn than autocannons could have, and you only had to assume that a handful of guardsmen survived a couple rounds of medium range weapons fire for 2 or 3 turns. Except for your trouble, you get 1 turn of fire (you won't get the second) as opposed to 2 or 3.

Ailaros: Wierd...I think I know you from 40KO...
Did you have a webizine way back? Because I remember the Ailarian Way of War and the shinannigans of the priest in the command squad.

Now...with 5th ed, I guess it switches things up.

I remember you talking about only moving when it's beneficial...which means hvy weapons would be the early concern for your squads, while meltas (great weapons) would be quite secondary/later game use.
______________________-

I would not say meltas are the 'best'/'better' gun for anti-tank purposes.
Not every transport (tanks lets say) is the same and some weapons are 'better' than others (ie Serpents vs. Rhinos).

I run with meltas and flamers mostly with my bikers. I run with multi-melta attack bikes for main anti-tank.
The meltas on biker troop squads end up as 'defensive' weapons when things get too close...so in a way, even with my speed and approachment, they are used if they get close to me.

My anti-transports are a combination of Meltas, MM, Fist, crack grenades, and even hvy bolters at times. I have the speed to place shots and get to where they can be used.

I miss longer ranged weapons, because there are times when with my speed I do not want to approach. Giving free reign for an opponent I don't want to get close to is giving up initiative and not setting the pace of the game. With no approachment, I can't take out elements of the opponent's long range assets attacking me.

Now, one can blame army composition, but I'm in the boat that 'any' list can win with more thought put into the usage rather than list building. All I'm saying is, that they have their place.
Meltas have been shown alot of love, but they are not without competitition from other weapons that have different strengths with similar roles.

Just the existance of the Avatar suggests me to diversify into getting something non-melta...but that is a just a minor detail.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Then they can EASILY disembark and fire/assault your lines without you doing jack.

Something they don't need transports for.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Alternatively, they pop smoke, lookey 50% chance that melta you're using does nothing.

Smoke hurts ALL ranged weapons, not just meltaguns. Furthermore, they dont' do anything to close combat options.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Vassal challenge issued about now-ish. Links in my signature.

How would a single game determine anything? There are so many complications of mission type, terrain placement, our capabilities to execute our plans, etc. etc. This wouldn't be a very controlled experiment at all, and thus wouldn't actually prove anything (other than in a very, very certain set of circumstances, one of us was a better player), at least not with regards to how to handle transports.

Being macho and whipping them out on the table and measuring isn't going to be useful to this discussion.

Wrexasaur wrote:LOL. Meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas... meltas, flamer.

Meltaguns, meltabombs, krak grenades, eviscerators, powerfists, demolisher cannons, MC's, etc.

Biophysical wrote:This isn't what I was saying. You've already bought the carriers, so you only need to spend ~10 points to get a heavy weapon also.

A single heavy weapon is not particularly effective. If you take more of them to create effectiveness, then you need to pay for the carriers as well.

Biophysical wrote:(although at this point you start shutting off areas where the opponent can get cover at all)

Unless they bring it with them, like with screening units, smoke, or SMF.

Biophysical wrote:Back to your turn, you now (on turn 2) get to pound that unit with long ranged fire that would not have been able to fire at enemy troops otherwise.

I'm not implying that you can't shoot long-range stuff at them if you take out the transports at range. I'm saying that you need to pay a premium in order to get your long range stuff to shoot at your opponent.

In a guard artillery-spam list, this might be worth it, but what about for everyone else? Why spend lots of points so that you can plink at them with heavy bolter fire when you can let them come into range and blow them apart with flamers and power weapons?

Biophysical wrote:225 points is pretty close to 4 infantry squads with meltas.

I would never advocate people take this, unless they had some SERIOUS constraints elsewhere in their list.

Biophysical wrote:Congratulations, you've done slightly better in one turn than autocannons could have, and you only had to assume that a handful of guardsmen survived a couple rounds of medium range weapons fire for 2 or 3 turns.

I agree, in your cherry-picked scenario they do pretty badly. That's why I would never put myself in your chosen scenario.

Sanctjud wrote:Wierd...I think I know you from 40KO... Because I remember the Ailarian Way of War and the shinannigans of the priest in the command squad

Yup. I posted my public game series there. I left, like most people who do, because of the terrible moderators.

Sanctjud wrote:Did you have a webizine way back?

I did, which you, yourself contributed to

Sanctjud wrote:Now...with 5th ed, I guess it switches things up.

I remember you talking about only moving when it's beneficial...which means hvy weapons would be the early concern for your squads, while meltas (great weapons) would be quite secondary/later game use.

It really did. More, better cover, everything moving so fast, and objectives being the only thing that matter anymore killed the gunline, and the old Ailarian way of war with it.

Sanctjud wrote:The meltas on biker troop squads end up as 'defensive' weapons when things get too close...so in a way, even with my speed and approachment, they are used if they get close to me.

Exactly, and getting close to you is the entire point of transports.

Sanctjud wrote:Giving free reign for an opponent I don't want to get close to is giving up initiative and not setting the pace of the game. With no approachment, I can't take out elements of the opponent's long range assets attacking me.

Definitely. Every army needs to have a way to approach an enemy, and every army has several ways. I think that's one of the problem with noobs, actually, is that they miss this very point.

You handle it with bikes, I handle it with outflanking, mass charges, and artillery, some people handle it with drop-pods.

Long-ranged weaponry means that you can pay to not need to rely so much on mobility, but it doesn't change the fact that mobility wins 5th ed. games, or that the best weapons require a little mobility to use.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:I think we have a different view of what counts as transports. I'm also including things like Razorbacks, Land Raiders, Vendettas, and other goodies. Yes, they may be tanks and flyers but anything that can hold a body is a transport in my mind.

Which all die pretty hard to proper close-ranged weaponry.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Also, I'm not sure what you're defining as a "best" weapon

I'm basing it off of the damage that it does per round of shooting. Sure, things like autocannons get more rounds, but I've been factoring that in.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:I personally don't think there really is one as they all have something that makes them worth taking in different situations.

Right, I'm not advocating for just one weapon, I'm advocating for just one class of weapons. Even though there isn't just one best that should only ever be taken always doesn't mean that all weapons are created equal for handling transports.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Firing at multiple ranges increases the probability of dealing with the problem earlier on.

But why does it matter when you kill them so long as you kill them?

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Trying to pop a transport at the last second is good and all, but if you fail you're screwed.

Solid list-building greatly helps, and you can do a lot to help in the movement phase to mitigate this problem.

That said, if you're luck is really that bad, then you're not going to be taking out the transports regardless.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:"why not take one of each and be average at smashing all of them equally?"

Because having weapons that can engage multiple targets in this game by and large weakens them. People may couch these weapons behind pleasant words like "flexibility" and "versatility", but it doesn't change the cold hard facts.

The fact is that "versatile" weapons, do a poor job with ANY target that they engage. This means, that against any given target on any given turn, you're not going to be doing the damage you need to what you're shootig at.

This can be alleviated by spamming lots of them. While this does mean that you're actually effective, you have to spend a lot of points to spam them. This means that you're draining serious resources from your list in order to get a weapon to do something that it's not good at.

When it comes to transports, we take it one step further. Is it worth it to drain said resources in order to kill transports when they're way over there, or is it better to use the points efficiently to kill them when they're over here? All of my arguments so far have been for the latter. I haven't heard much with regards to support for the former, and that which I've heard I haven't heard explained past a single level of inquiry (such as "to what end?").

Another way I can think to re-frame this whole argument is like this:

Your opponent has scary units. These units must get close to you in order to win (except for guard artillery on KP missions). After all, if a unit of khorne bezerkers is hiding in the corner, why do I need to care about them?

There are many ways to get those units close, including transports, but what is really important is the units they're carrying. You can't shoot said units when they're in transports. However, you can blow up the transports AND their cargo very easily at close range. As such, they're doing you a favor by getting their units into range of your guns for you. If they're not, then they're the equivalent of bezerkers hiding in a corner that I don't need to care about.

Now, you could instead pay a premium to slow them down slightly, and give your long ranged guns an extra turn to shoot at them. The problem is that long-ranged guns shooting for two turns aren't as good as short-ranged guns shooting for one (one again, excluding guard artillery spam, which makes them roughly equal). Why would you want to spend more points in order to have worse guns do less damage?

But what about those units that DON'T need to get close to you? Well, you need to get close to them. This, however, is out of the scope of a discussion for dealing with transports, which DO need to come to you to be useful for victory.

Ailaros wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Then they can EASILY disembark and fire/assault your lines without you doing jack.

Something they don't need transports for.

O.K. Though the transports helps their ability to do this, and the fact that you think you're melta guns and close combat weapons are going to do it is not a sound tact.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Alternatively, they pop smoke, lookey 50% chance that melta you're using does nothing.

Smoke hurts ALL ranged weapons, not just meltaguns. Furthermore, they dont' do anything to close combat options.

Ok, though they only need to do it once against a melta, other guns have multiple turns to fire. Some of which, the transports will not be smoked.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Vassal challenge issued about now-ish. Links in my signature.

How would a single game determine anything? There are so many complications of mission type, terrain placement, our capabilities to execute our plans, etc. etc. This wouldn't be a very controlled experiment at all, and thus wouldn't actually prove anything (other than in a very, very certain set of circumstances, one of us was a better player), at least not with regards to how to handle transports.

Why are mission types a complication? Terrain placement can be handled by a third party, and our capabilites to execute plans, you're either insulting me, or glorifying me, which I don't think is happening.

But what about those units that DON'T need to get close to you? Well, you need to get close to them. This, however, is out of the scope of a discussion for dealing with transports, which DO need to come to you to be useful for victory.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:This isn't what I was saying. You've already bought the carriers, so you only need to spend ~10 points to get a heavy weapon also.

A single heavy weapon is not particularly effective. If you take more of them to create effectiveness, then you need to pay for the carriers as well.

Fair enough, you don't see value in fewer amounts of autocannons, others do.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:(although at this point you start shutting off areas where the opponent can get cover at all)

Unless they bring it with them, like with screening units, smoke, or SMF.

All of those things work against meltaguns also.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:Back to your turn, you now (on turn 2) get to pound that unit with long ranged fire that would not have been able to fire at enemy troops otherwise.

I'm not implying that you can't shoot long-range stuff at them if you take out the transports at range. I'm saying that you need to pay a premium in order to get your long range stuff to shoot at your opponent.

In a guard artillery-spam list, this might be worth it, but what about for everyone else? Why spend lots of points so that you can plink at them with heavy bolter fire when you can let them come into range and blow them apart with flamers and power weapons?

Because paying 10 points/squad for a few squads to have anti-transport weapons is not that many points. Heavy weapons let infantry squads hurt someone in the first few turns of the game, and are not very high in points so don't ding you too bad if you decide movement is more important.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:225 points is pretty close to 4 infantry squads with meltas.

I would never advocate people take this, unless they had some SERIOUS constraints elsewhere in their list.

Well, you talk a lot about big power weapon blob squads, so that's what I pointed out. As you disingenuously failed to note, however, the math example I later provided was assuming SWS full of meltas, which you seem to be advocating. The folly of relying on several small groups of T3 5+ save troops that must be within 6" of the enemy to outperform "ineffective" weapons is something I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:Congratulations, you've done slightly better in one turn than autocannons could have, and you only had to assume that a handful of guardsmen survived a couple rounds of medium range weapons fire for 2 or 3 turns.

I agree, in your cherry-picked scenario they do pretty badly. That's why I would never put myself in your chosen scenario.

The scenario I described was not cherry-picked, it was Rhino tactics 101. If the Rhino passenger's effective threat range is greater than the threat range of a meltagun (hint, it is), then the Rhino passengers will get to determine the battle. You repeatedly have advocated using melta-guns to defend objectives, I just laid out how a transported squad could easily engage meltaguns defending an objective. Please describe how you would defend, or take and objective from transport mounted troops.

You argument is certainly built on a very specific scenario. Realitically speaking most people would sit back and just dakka you to death with their longer range guns. However, since we're talking about a situation like that I feel like I have to agree with you only because you're so specific to the situation.

Would I base my list on your theory? Not really, but it's something to consider for certain units I suppose. Still I'd like to see your argument expanded to take in other factors. For example, the main basis of the argument is that transports need to run up to you to fulfill their goal that most of them have. What would you do if their transports merely waited on their own objectives and waited for you to get into their threatening reach?

I know this isn't part of YOUR scenario, but in a real life situation you should probably include that. After all theory is nice and all, but you have to test your theory as well to prove a proper point.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote: the fact that you think you're melta guns and close combat weapons are going to do it is not a sound tact.

Why not?

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Ok, though they only need to do it once against a melta, other guns have multiple turns to fire. Some of which, the transports will not be smoked.

How many turns do you really think you're going to get against a transport rush?

Biophysical wrote:Fair enough, you don't see value in fewer amounts of autocannons, others do.

This is part of my point. Please explain why a couple of autocannons are worth their price.

Biophysical wrote:Because paying 10 points/squad for a few squads to have anti-transport weapons is not that many points.

We've been over this. You also have to pay for the carrier. Even if you didn't (which I don't see how), you're still needing to take multiples, which still makes it more expensive.

Biophysical wrote:The folly of relying on several small groups of T3 5+ save troops that must be within 6" of the enemy to outperform "ineffective" weapons is something I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

Because you can't articulate it?

This doesnt' seem folly to me at all.

Biophysical wrote:If the Rhino passenger's effective threat range is greater than the threat range of a meltagun (hint, it is), then the Rhino passengers will get to determine the battle.

This is not an advantage special to transports. You can even acieve this on foot, much less other mobility means.

Said, another way, you will have to deal with this problem whether your opponent has units in transports that are blown up at long range or not.

Biophysical wrote:You repeatedly have advocated using melta-guns to defend objectives, I just laid out how a transported squad could easily engage meltaguns defending an objective.

But you're missing the point. I'm not advocating using meltaguns against squads. Of course meltaguns are going to be bad against boyz falling out of a trukk - the meltaguns are there for the trukk.

Biophysical wrote:Please describe how you would defend, or take and objective from transport mounted troops.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote: What would you do if their transports merely waited on their own objectives and waited for you to get into their threatening reach?

Sure, I can go over this again.

How to defend an objective against transport mounted troops? Well, if I'm sitting on the objective, then they need to come to me. Once they close range, I nail them with a variety of close-ranged options. If they stay far away, then they're not claiming the objective, are they?

How do I take objectives against mounted troops? The same way I take objectives from anything. He's got to sit on the objective in order to claim it, which means it's no different from just another unit sitting on the objective, transport or not.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote: Realitically speaking most people would sit back and just dakka you to death with their longer range guns.

How does sitting back and shooting win you an objectives game?

Sgt.Sunshine wrote: After all theory is nice and all, but you have to test your theory as well to prove a proper point.

If you can design an experiment that takes all possible variables into control, I'd be interested. That said, you can't design an experiment that takes player skill into account, so I earnestly think this is impossible.

True, you do have a point about skill level always being a random factor. However, with all good experiments there is always a stage that needs to account for chaos. Failing to do so...well it would be bad >_>

Furthermore, I think you misunderstood when I said "threatening reach". What I meant was that while they will sit there once you get into their movement/assault range there's a good chance they'll drive right up into your face, unload, and let the slaughter begin. That would make your meltaguns a bit moot because the enemy no longer needs their transports as they have engaged your units successfully.

Maybe it was the wording, but by sit on their objective I meant they'll be forcing you to come to them where they have a longer stick than you. The stick being their possible movement and deployment of troops.

Oh, are you implying that shooting a unit down to the last man doesn't help at all? If I clear off your objective with long range fire and still have mine...

Let's pretend there's an objective in the middle. The squad in a transport gets there first, because they're faster, or just because they went first. You have to get rid of them. How do you do it? Please provide specifics, not generalities. I'll agree that one specific example does not prove something, but the lack of ability to provide a single specific example in support does strongly suggest a weakness in a theory. "Hit them with a variety of short range options" is not very specific.


Ailaros, I feel I have given you the benefit of the doubt up to this point, but you claim that you don't see a problem with basing your armys anti-tank on 6 man teams of guardsmen with extremely close range weapons. If you fail to see why this is a problem, it is telling in either your ability to understand the game or interest in actually having an exchange of ideas.

Nevertheless, here is why it is bad:

T3, 5+ save guardsmen are very easy to kill. Special weapon teams have high weapon/spare bodies ratios, so your opponent kills lots of weapons by killing only a few models. These teams have very short ranged guns, which means they must endure multiple rounds of fire before they get a chance to use their guns, and are able to be targeted by nearly every weapon in the game before they can engage at close range. A single heavy bolter stands a good chance of causing a leadership check.

Small units often have a place in armies, but these are usually either tougher, faster, or longer ranged, reducing the effectiveness, quantity, or amount of incoming fire that can come their way. The squad you advocate has none of these advantages.

A minor note:
One only needs to be at the objective starting turn 5.
So getting there 'first' isn't always a good thing, while getting there last wins (or ties up) games.

Tyranids can deal very well with vehicles (only) at such short ranges as Ailaros is describing.

That is one reason Tyranids are horrible at dealing with vehicles.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Furthermore, I think you misunderstood when I said "threatening reach". What I meant was that while they will sit there once you get into their movement/assault range there's a good chance they'll drive right up into your face, unload, and let the slaughter begin.

Yeah, but this is a matter for the movement phase. Transports or not, units can always get up close and slaughter. The real question is "who is better at close-ranged slaughter?", not "who can try and prevent close-range fights at all?", because a determined opponent is always going to be able to get his units close to something, whether through various means (running, outflanking, etc.), or through things like the fact that objectives can't move, and so are easy to catch, even on foot.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:That would make your meltaguns a bit moot because the enemy no longer needs their transports as they have engaged your units successfully.

Sure. You could even say that killing the transport itself is moot once it drops off its cargo as all it's doing is driving around blocking LOS and other non-objective things. That said, they are still obnoxious, and, more importantly, without the meltaguns there, then they could just sit there with the troops in the transports on the obejective and not get out until the coast is clear. Taking some short ranged firepower I think is worth spending the points on to prevent this scenario.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Oh, are you implying that shooting a unit down to the last man doesn't help at all? If I clear off your objective with long range fire and still have mine...

No, I like wiping units completely out as much as the next person.

The math shows that you need to spend a LOT of points to do the damage with long-ranged weapons to get the job done, though. I mean, if I throw a 30-man blob squad with a commissar on an objective in cover with an officer nearby giving them a 2+ cover, no amount of long range shooting is going to dislodge that over the course of a regular game.

Getting flamered or assaulted or something on the other hand, would be tough, but it's really the only chance you'd have.

Biophysical wrote:Let's pretend there's an objective in the middle. The squad in a transport gets there first, because they're faster, or just because they went first. You have to get rid of them. How do you do it? Please provide specifics, not generalities. I'll agree that one specific example does not prove something, but the lack of ability to provide a single specific example in support does strongly suggest a weakness in a theory. "Hit them with a variety of short range options" is not very specific.

Well, let's see, I charge a S10 monstrous creature in there, or I drop pod some combi-flamer sternguard, or I FRFSRF with 40 guardsmen, or I charge in with assault troops or bikes, or I pound them off with guard artillery and clean up the rest with short ranged weapons, or I open up a 'gate and charge wyches through, or I have demons pop up and assault out of the warp, or I charge in death company with an apothecary and a sanguinius priest, or I charge in and blast them with vindicators, or I bring up a LR and charge them with SS/TH terminators.

How many more specific examples do you need for ways to kill stuff at close range?

Biophysical wrote:but you claim that you don't see a problem with basing your armys anti-tank on 6 man teams of guardsmen with extremely close range weapons.

Firstly, this example was given to satisfy a points-effective alternative, not the most durable possible alternative.

Secondly, guard units are cheap, which means you can take a lot of them, which means it doesn't matter if you loose a unit here or there.

Thirdly, keeping your units alive is something that a good commander needs to do regardless of if your opponent's troops choice are in transports or not.

Fourthly, stopping a transport in no way neutralizes your opponent's units' ability to kill your stuff.

If you can't keep your critical units alive long enough, you can fix this problem in the list-building and movement phase.

I'm sorry if this is coming across as unintelligible to you, but I don't think me being skeptical of your apparent claim that you can't handle your opponents without taking out your opponent's transports is a sign of idiocy on my part.

Sanctjud wrote:A minor note:
One only needs to be at the objective starting turn 5.
So getting there 'first' isn't always a good thing, while getting there last wins (or ties up) games.

Totally.

You don't need to drop your troops off on an objecetive turn 1, and then just sit there getting shot at for 5 more turns. You just need to take them off an objective, or show up BEFORE your opponent, not necessarily turn 1.

Getting there last can be good, but only if you get there in such a way where I can't then attack the units that were dropped off before the game ends. In this case, it's not who gets there first or last, it's who is left standing there at the end.

kirsanth wrote:Tyranids can deal very well with vehicles (only) at such short ranges as Ailaros is describing.

That is one reason Tyranids are horrible at dealing with vehicles.

I highly disagree. Zoanthrope lancing, high strength attacks on flying bugs, and just MCs in general do terrible damage to vehicles. I lost this game and this game(for just a couple examples) because of what MCs can do to tanks, and these were played back in the day where you had to charge front armor.

Plus, MCs are great objective campers because they're so hard to kill. Some of them are even scoring.

Sanctjud wrote:A minor note:
One only needs to be at the objective starting turn 5.
So getting there 'first' isn't always a good thing, while getting there last wins (or ties up) games.

Nevertheless, one will have to get that objective in order to win (or tie). The situation remains valid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:Let's pretend there's an objective in the middle. The squad in a transport gets there first, because they're faster, or just because they went first. You have to get rid of them. How do you do it? Please provide specifics, not generalities. I'll agree that one specific example does not prove something, but the lack of ability to provide a single specific example in support does strongly suggest a weakness in a theory. "Hit them with a variety of short range options" is not very specific.

Well, let's see, I charge a S10 monstrous creature in there, or I drop pod some combi-flamer sternguard, or I FRFSRF with 40 guardsmen, or I charge in with assault troops or bikes, or I pound them off with guard artillery and clean up the rest with short ranged weapons, or I open up a 'gate and charge wyches through, or I have demons pop up and assault out of the warp, or I charge in death company with an apothecary and a sanguinius priest, or I charge in and blast them with vindicators, or I bring up a LR and charge them with SS/TH terminators.

How many more specific examples do you need for ways to kill stuff at close range?

All of the examples you just described either A) don't hurt the transport at all, or B) kill the transport and leave the attacking unit open to short range counterattack from the transported unit. The transport has protected its troops from the initial assault, and leaves attackers open to counter-attack. Of course other units will be involved, that's why it's a board game and fun to play, but most generals would be happy to have an opponent commit the powerful close range forces you just described to kill a transport. You want weapons to kill transports just so you can get units like those in your list to beat on the passengers.

Ailaros]

Biophysical wrote:but you claim that you don't see a problem with basing your armys anti-tank on 6 man teams of guardsmen with extremely close range weapons.

Firstly, this example was given to satisfy a points-effective alternative, not the most durable possible alternative.

Secondly, guard units are cheap, which means you can take a lot of them, which means it doesn't matter if you loose a unit here or there.

Thirdly, keeping your units alive is something that a good commander needs to do regardless of if your opponent's troops choice are in transports or not.

Fourthly, stopping a transport in no way neutralizes your opponent's units' ability to kill your stuff.

If you can't keep your critical units alive long enough, you can fix this problem in the list-building and movement phase.

I'm sorry if this is coming across as unintelligible to you, but I don't think me being skeptical of your apparent claim that you can't handle your opponents without taking out your opponent's transports is a sign of idiocy on my part.

First: If you get more durable meltas you get less meltas, the critique stands.

Second: Except in the third of your games that are kill point missions.

Third: Of course.

Fourth: This is false. if they are pure assault units, making them move 6+D6" per turn compared to 12" with a 2" deployment halo from the transport hull can very often mean one turn longer before assault, and multiple more turns of shooting them.

I've never said you can't win without killing transports, it's just a lot harder against a good opponent. I don't doubt your intelligence because you disagree with a claim I never made. I have provided a situation where the math suggests autocannons are comparable to your preferred meltagun. You have not refuted that situation, or provided a counter situation.

Ailaros wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Tyranids can deal very well with vehicles (only) at such short ranges as Ailaros is describing.

That is one reason Tyranids are horrible at dealing with vehicles.

I highly disagree. Zoanthrope lancing, high strength attacks on flying bugs, and just MCs in general do terrible damage to vehicles.

So you disagree that at short range Tyranids are good at killing vehicles and as proof you site Tyranids being excellent at killing vehicles at short range?

Just to be clear, we are assuming that the defending army, the one without transports, are the imperial guard right?

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Just to be clear, we are assuming that the defending army, the one without transports, are the imperial guard right?

In this particular case, the OP plays blood angels. The point I'm making counts for all armies, though.

kirsanth wrote:So you disagree that at short range Tyranids are good at killing vehicles and as proof you site Tyranids being excellent at killing vehicles at short range?

I was disagreeing with your statement that tyranid are bad against vehicles because they only have short-ranged options.

Biophysical wrote:A) don't hurt the transport at all

That's because I was talking about the cargo, although if you can't take down a transport with a S10 MC, I feel for you. With regard to the transports...

I could use sternguard with combi-meltas, or guard SWSs or PCSs or CCSs with meltaguns, or priests, or anything with krak grenades, or anything with meltabombs, or MCs or anything with a power fist.

Seriously, there is stuff in every army that can take down transports at close range.

Biophysical wrote:kill the transport and leave the attacking unit open to short range counterattack from the transported unit. Of course other units will be involved.

Exactly, other units will be involved, care of combined arms.

Biophysical wrote:but most generals would be happy to have an opponent commit the powerful close range forces you just described to kill a transport.

Wait, so now transport army generals would be happy to lose their transports?

Or are you making a point about points-effectiveness? If that's the case, if I were a transport commander, I would MUCH rather my opponent waste hundreds of points peeling the paint on my 50 point transports than I would like for my troops to get anihilated when they pop out of the transport on arrival.

Biophysical wrote:If you get more durable meltas you get less meltas, the critique stands.

HWSs are even LESS durable than are SWSs. Unless you're talking about tanks, which are MUCH more expensive (and not necessarily durable, as running them into meltaguns would show)

Biophysical wrote:Except in the third of your games that are kill point missions.

All guard armies have problems with kill points regardless of the opponents they face. What does this have to do with transports?

Biophysical wrote:if they are pure assault units, making them move 6+D6" per turn compared to 12" with a 2" deployment halo from the transport hull can very often mean one turn longer before assault, and multiple more turns of shooting them.

Why would you rather spend a lot more points to fire crappy weapons at your opponent's units (even though you get an extra turn to do it), than to spend fewer points to fire good weapons at your opponent's units?

Biophysical wrote:I have provided a situation where the math suggests autocannons are comparable to your preferred meltagun. You have not refuted that situation, or provided a counter situation.

Firstly, I have provided a lot of situations. I even threw some in at the top of this post.

Secondly, I haven't bothered with your math, because your math wasn't contributing to the discussion. If you really must drag it out...

Against AV11, 3x autocannons puts down 3 hits, which wrecks or immobilizes .58, .29 when they use smoke. Against the same target type, 3 meltaguns puts down 1.5 hits which wrecks or immobilizes .69, .34 when they use smoke. Against AV12, the autocannons do .333 while the meltagun downs .63

Other than that meltaguns are better at killing transports except against the flimsiest targets (I'd like to see an autocannon stop a land raider), which LOTS of things can kill, what are we really learning from these numbers?

In the case of autocannons, the whole reason to take them is to stop your opponent in the turn or two before they arrive at your lines. In order to stop a rhino, you need to spend 150 points to stop a 40 point transport. In the case of a chimera, you have to spend 225 to stop a 55 point transport. Therefore, you need to pay a premium (to the tune of 300%-400%) to get the job done. To what end?

In the case of meltaguns, if you want them absolutely dead in a single go, then yeah, you need to spend more than the transport, but not as much (especially once we start talking about more serious transports like chimeras, eldar vehicles and the like). Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to. If you really want to continue to pursue this, I'd note that autocannons are bunk against everything non-transport, while the meltagun is great against lots of things, providing even more points-effectiveness from elsewhere.

And this is just one specific example. A priest charging in with an eviscerator does more damage than either of these two. Likewise a DCCW dread can rip a transport apart with ease. Or, as stated, I can ignore the transport once it's unloaded its cargo and destroy the guys who got out, in which case my opponent just has a worthless transport left, and I still have the objective.

But muddling around in the numbers is still missing my point alltogether. Why spend ANY points to take down your opponent's stuff at range? Why not ONLY spend points to take out the cargo (other than the one scenario mentioned last post where they don't get out voluntarily)?

Good players will be able to adapt to losing a few dozen points in transports, and they can still do just fine, given that the units inside are unscathed, and are now only facing off against crappy long-ranged firepower. I honestly fail to see what stopping your opponent at length does, other than inconvenience him.

Meanwhile, you could have spent the points you spent on long-range guns (which why are we even assume are getting to shoot every turn? Does not terrain block LOS? Does not your opponent drop pod?) in order to spend those points on actually killing his units. Every point spent on a squad with an autocannon is a point I could have spent on a tank with a splat cannon or a CC uber-destroyer, or even just flamers and other special weapons.

Why is it worth the cost?

To me, it isn't, so I choose to spend the points better elsewhere. Unless someone can come up with why you get a lot of value for the points you spent shooting his transports, I will continue not to, and will discourage other people from doing it as well.

Question, is your scenario working under the assumption that only one transport is coming towards you?

Not necessarily, but it scales.

I mean, you need to take a certain number of autocannons PER TRANSPORT. For the sake of simplicity, I've been assuming one, but there is a ratio built in, so it scales.

Oh alright, it was just a bit odd because you kept working under the assumption that the rest of your units would be free to assist against one transport and not...you know...being attacked as well. Just wanted to clarify. I'm just going to assume the scale works out somehow.

Ailaros wrote:

kirsanth wrote:So you disagree that at short range Tyranids are good at killing vehicles and as proof you site Tyranids being excellent at killing vehicles at short range?

I was disagreeing with your statement that tyranid are bad against vehicles because they only have short-ranged options.

Gotcha. Glad I had you to tell me, because having played Tyranids soley for these years I had that noticed mech armies are a lot harder with 5e and the new 'dex. Good to know it is just me.

Most folks I know would never get a vehicle into charge range of a carnifex, unless they wanted to kill the 'fex with the unit inside--because that is exactly what happens when you destroy transports in an assault.

Sure, Zoanthropes in a pod will kill a vehicle, but it is very rare for them to get a second chance.

There is a reason Hive Guard/Tyranofex's are in most Tyranid lists.
Range.

Ailaros wrote:Secondly, I haven't bothered with your math, because your math wasn't contributing to the discussion. If you really must drag it out...

His argument was sound, and you ignored it because it didn't agree with your argument.

Against AV11, 3x autocannons puts down 3 hits, which wrecks or immobilizes .58, .29 when they use smoke. Against the same target type, 3 meltaguns puts down 1.5 hits which wrecks or immobilizes .69, .34 when they use smoke. Against AV12, the autocannons do .333 while the meltagun downs .63

Other than that meltaguns are better at killing transports except against the flimsiest targets (I'd like to see an autocannon stop a land raider), which LOTS of things can kill, what are we really learning from these numbers?

Stuff, we are learning stuff.

Other than that you're agreeing with what has been argued against you, while presenting those same arguments as supporting your position. You also say, "So what?", an awful lot. Here are your numbers organized in a fashion which is clear and concise.

vs. AV11
Ac= .58/.29
Me= .69/.34

vs. AV12
Ac= .33
Me= .63

Besides the problem that you're ignoring half of the factors involved in those weapons, mainly in range, you're agreeing with Biophysical if I am not mistaken. The AC fires for more turns at a longer range, and is only slightly less effective against AV11 (but it fires more... but you're free to ignore that, as usual), and best not used against AV12 if at all possible. You can bring different ranged weapons at that point, to deal with the same targets mentioned at range.

You're still providing very little in terms of solid arguments, and avoiding examples and test games because... well honestly I don't know. You're just avoiding it.

In the case of autocannons, the whole reason to take them is to stop your opponent in the turn or two before they arrive at your lines. In order to stop a rhino, you need to spend 150 points to stop a 40 point transport. In the case of a chimera, you have to spend 225 to stop a 55 point transport. Therefore, you need to pay a premium (to the tune of 300%-400%) to get the job done. To what end?

To the end that your gaming style simply doesn't care about.
The one in which you don't care what the transports do, because "You'll shoot them eventually, and all will go according to plan".

In the case of meltaguns, if you want them absolutely dead in a single go, then yeah, you need to spend more than the transport, but not as much (especially once we start talking about more serious transports like chimeras, eldar vehicles and the like). Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to. If you really want to continue to pursue this, I'd note that autocannons are bunk against everything non-transport, while the meltagun is great against lots of things, providing even more points-effectiveness from elsewhere.

Good job, you broke your own argument and people are pretty much fed up going over the same exact things, getting the same exact lame responses.

And this is just one specific example. A priest charging in with an eviscerator does more damage than either of these two. Likewise a DCCW dread can rip a transport apart with ease. Or, as stated, I can ignore the transport once it's unloaded its cargo and destroy the guys who got out, in which case my opponent just has a worthless transport left, and I still have the objective.

But muddling around in the numbers is still missing my point alltogether. Why spend ANY points to take down your opponent's stuff at range? Why not ONLY spend points to take out the cargo (other than the one scenario mentioned last post where they don't get out voluntarily)?

I honestly have no idea what game you are playing at this point. You refuse to have test games, ignore mathhammer because only yours is right (or something), and respond with misleading and circular commentary.

You might as well respond by saying "No." in many of your posts.

Good players will be able to adapt to losing a few dozen points in transports, and they can still do just fine, given that the units inside are unscathed, and are now only facing off against crappy long-ranged firepower. I honestly fail to see what stopping your opponent at length does, other than inconvenience him.

Again, what game are you playing? Why doesn't this make transports a waste of points in your mind? If I recall your previous responses, they were something along the lines of, they are and they aren't, but it doesn't matter because all important parts of the game take place at ranges under a foot.

Meanwhile, you could have spent the points you spent on long-range guns (which why are we even assume are getting to shoot every turn? Does not terrain block LOS? Does not your opponent drop pod?) in order to spend those points on actually killing his units. Every point spent on a squad with an autocannon is a point I could have spent on a tank with a splat cannon or a CC uber-destroyer, or even just flamers and other special weapons.

Do so and enjoy your games, but don't expect to convince many people that your arguments are sound.

Why is it worth the cost?

For reasons that you simply don't give a flying feth about.

To me, it isn't, so I choose to spend the points better elsewhere. Unless someone can come up with why you get a lot of value for the points you spent shooting his transports, I will continue not to, and will discourage other people from doing it as well.

You are completely entitled to your opinion, and we will continue to discourage you from spreading your concepts, for fear that all noobs will be scraped by the might of more experienced players... mainly due to reliance on weapons that cannot fill every role, for every army.

I'll try to limit my responses to only the most ridiculous suggestions on your part.

Ailaros wrote:In the case of meltaguns, if you want them absolutely dead in a single go, then yeah, you need to spend more than the transport, but not as much (especially once we start talking about more serious transports like chimeras, eldar vehicles and the like). Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to. If you really want to continue to pursue this, I'd note that autocannons are bunk against everything non-transport, while the meltagun is great against lots of things, providing even more points-effectiveness from elsewhere.

I lol'd.

On a side note, I'd just like to point out that you'll never get close to an Eldar tank unless they want you to, and that Meltaguns lose their second die against their transports. What else? Storm Ravens, Monoliths. Can't Black Templar make their Landraiders special? Or was that only for Lance weapons?

For your arguement about Deepstriking or drop-podding armies being an issue for long ranged weapons: the enemy only comes in half at a time. Now if you take only short ranged weapons, you can only bring your local resources to bear. Even against a drop-podding/infiltrating/Deepstriking army long ranged weapons give you an advantage: you can still hit anything he's put on the field. If he puts a Dreadnought where you have no Meltaguns, or a Stormraven where you have only Meltaguns, a well balanced weapons load-out will let you meet these challenges. I don't even care if you read this, I'm writing this for my sake, not yours.

Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to

Damn it, I thought I could manage to stay out of this thread, but this dragged me right back in

I'm going to assume you're talking about the transport here, and not the content (but that would be even better )
Disregarding all the useful stuff the transport can do, because you just say "it won't help winning the game" (hint, it actually will), there is one more issue that will actually help your opponent win the game directly. They can contest objectives, or even tank-shock you off the objectives.

DarkHound wrote:

Ailaros wrote:In the case of meltaguns, if you want them absolutely dead in a single go, then yeah, you need to spend more than the transport, but not as much (especially once we start talking about more serious transports like chimeras, eldar vehicles and the like). Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to. If you really want to continue to pursue this, I'd note that autocannons are bunk against everything non-transport, while the meltagun is great against lots of things, providing even more points-effectiveness from elsewhere.

I lol'd.

You're not the only one...

Illumini wrote:

Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to

Damn it, I thought I could manage to stay out of this thread, but this dragged me right back in

I'm going to assume you're talking about the transport here, and not the content (but that would be even better )
Disregarding all the useful stuff the transport can do, because you just say "it won't help winning the game" (hint, it actually will), there is one more issue that will actually help your opponent win the game directly. They can contest objectives, or even tank-shock you off the objectives.

As craftworld Chedd-ar, that IS the game for me...

Ailaros In the words of nancy kerrigan " Why! Why!" . The guard dex has so many cheap heavy weapons Why! not take a few. And good luck with your meltaguns against my pillbox "transports", ill have so many HB, ML and possible HS shots into you that your foot troops will fold. At that point i can send my valks or vends to contest or cap. I think you have to have some way to stun/immobilize/destroy enemy transports in the early turns, just to disrupt your enemy's plans. The squad that is on foot after thier tranny gets pwned is dead meat walking across the board. With my mass of "inefective" weapons HB/ML/AC i can kill PA troops on foot they fail 1/3 of thier saves, and that fire is just from chimeras with IS with auto cannons in them. You can load out many Chimeras this way for cheap and have plenty of points for valk/vend or heavy support.

GeneralDisaray wrote:Ailaros In the words of nancy kerrigan " Why! Why!" . The guard dex has so many cheap heavy weapons Why! not take a few. And good luck with your meltaguns against my pillbox "transports", ill have so many HB, ML and possible HS shots into you that your foot troops will fold. At that point i can send my valks or vends to contest or cap. I think you have to have some way to stun/immobilize/destroy enemy transports in the early turns, just to disrupt your enemy's plans. The squad that is on foot after thier tranny gets pwned is dead meat walking across the board. With my mass of "inefective" weapons HB/ML/AC i can kill PA troops on foot they fail 1/3 of thier saves, and that fire is just from chimeras with IS with auto cannons in them. You can load out many Chimeras this way for cheap and have plenty of points for valk/vend or heavy support.

A very valid post that the OP should consider.