I’m thinking it might be an indication of other changes in 9th, with a focus more on units rather than models. If one model in a unit moves, the whole unit counts as moving. Not sure what other implications this could have, but it’s making me think about it.
I think its the design team changing the RAW to match their RAI.
Seems like they were caught out a lot in 8th with what the wrote not actually doing what they ment.
Cant see it making much difference although really need the exact rules for the +/- 1 rule otherwise moving heavy weapons will have no difference at -1 targets w
It's just lazy. Trying too hard to streamline something that doesn't need streamlining. If a heavy weapon doesn't move...it shouldn't be penalized, full stop. Counterpoint; why do you think it's a good idea?
Elbows wrote: It's just lazy. Trying too hard to streamline something that doesn't need streamlining. If a heavy weapon doesn't move...it shouldn't be penalized, full stop. Counterpoint; why do you think it's a good idea?
It helps avoid silly congalines where the heavy weapon guy stands still and everyone else moves forward to grab an objective or something.
I don't really have a horse in the race, I just thought your response seemed pretty harsh.
What's wrong with being harsh? If anything, in this kind of situation, a conga-line is actually a logical thing. It would represent a heavy weapon providing covering fire while someone does sneak out and grab the objective - assuming we ignore the silliness of walking around a table to stand on a token as a "wargame objective".
Note: this is only necessitated because of squad coherency which is a necessary evil. Back in 2nd edition Imperial Guard squads could detach their heavy weapon for precisely this reason; providing covering fire while the squad maneuvers, etc. 40K isn't much of a wargame, but rules changes like this are making it even less so.
I like it, as it’s a limitation on how effective shooting is which I think was out of hand in 8th. I don’t think by itself it’ll have a huge impact though. It used to be the standard that a unit counted as moving or not for firing heavy weapons. I wonder what other old rules might have returned. Models didn’t always have the ability to shoot all their weapons (other than pistols/grenades), and units didn’t get to split their fire in the past. It’s possible something like this or variations on them could be returning too.
Elbows wrote: What's wrong with being harsh? If anything, in this kind of situation, a conga-line is actually a logical thing. It would represent a heavy weapon providing covering fire while someone does sneak out and grab the objective - assuming we ignore the silliness of walking around a table to stand on a token as a "wargame objective".
Feels like an overreaction to a rather minor nerf.
Elbows wrote: What's wrong with being harsh? If anything, in this kind of situation, a conga-line is actually a logical thing. It would represent a heavy weapon providing covering fire while someone does sneak out and grab the objective - assuming we ignore the silliness of walking around a table to stand on a token as a "wargame objective".
Feels like an overreaction to a rather minor nerf.
How is it an overreaction? People asked what we think of it...and I think it's crap and lazy.
I have to admit we played like this all edition I thought they had already changed it from 7th Edition. But then again the -1 was usually not bad enough to make you stand still if you had to reach something important.
Sasori wrote: Shooting has been incredibly dominant through most of 8th, and this a pretty minor nerf on the face of things.
Exactly.
So, maybe nerf the real actual problems? (constant flood of re-rolls and cheap and abused stratagems, etc.)
Makes me wonder if anything will happen to auras and rerolls.
This rule change is more about it being a buff to vehicles than a minor nerf to infantry. Daemon engines move and shoot (and the disco is happy to buff). The calculus for some flyers changes. Vindicators grinding up at the front of the battle.
Aash wrote: I mentioned this in the news and rumours thread, but that thread is moving so quickly I thought I’d post it here.
What’s everyone’s thoughts on the new rule for heavy weapon infantry? Seems a pretty major change that will change the way a lot of units function.
8th edition heavy weapons are -1 to hit if the MODEL moves. 9th edition heavy weapons get -1 to hit if the UNIT moves (only for infantry).
Personally I think that’s a big change. What do you all think?
Eh, makes sense. Keeps it short and simple. Is easy for newbies to wrap their head around. Yeah it takes away some of the neat tricks to move the rest of the unit around it but I don't really mind that much.
It bugs me a little, but I’m not going to loose any sleep over it.
Back in prior editions, if Joe with the flamer got antsy and took a step towards the enemy, Bob with the ML didn’t get to shoot at all. Maybe his bolt pistol. So eating a -1 is not the end of the world.
But back then, Tac squads paid less for their heavies, knowing that they were not going to get as much done as their brothers in the Dev squads. With a flat rate on gear these days, you are going to end up in situations where you pay the same price, but get a lot less use out of it.
I know I probably shouldn’t be worried about how efficient full 10 man tac squads are. Have they ever been a good use of points? But anything that makes one of the most iconic units less likely to hit the table is bad, IMHO. The mechanics should try to incentivate the players into fielding fluffy units. This change does not.
It should make the game a little simpler. Easy binary check. Did any part of the unit move? Whole thing counts as moving. Don’t need to worry about how many guys had to shuffle to get to cover, and how many started there.
I’d say it reduces tactical options, on how to place, move, and shoot your units. But it just shifts them.
And at the end of the day, it’s only a -1. Which depending on how things work out and who you are shooting at, might not mater at all. If they don’t indeed stack, my UM tacs falling out of combat at taking a -1 anyway, so they guy with the HB can just let it rip as well as his brothers with bolters.
But the guy with the flamer needs to calm down, or he’s going to eat a misfired krack missile to the back of the head.
Aash wrote: I mentioned this in the news and rumours thread, but that thread is moving so quickly I thought I’d post it here.
What’s everyone’s thoughts on the new rule for heavy weapon infantry? Seems a pretty major change that will change the way a lot of units function.
8th edition heavy weapons are -1 to hit if the MODEL moves. 9th edition heavy weapons get -1 to hit if the UNIT moves (only for infantry).
Personally I think that’s a big change. What do you all think?
Eh, makes sense. Keeps it short and simple. Is easy for newbies to wrap their head around. Yeah it takes away some of the neat tricks to move the rest of the unit around it but I don't really mind that much.
Eh I was a noob in 2nd Ed, it wasn't hard to detach your heavy weapon team to provide covering fire while your Infantry got stuck in. It also allowed you to effectively split your fire. The grunts can hose down the enemy foot soldiers while the HW targets their armour.
Ice_can wrote: I think its the design team changing the RAW to match their RAI.
Seems like they were caught out a lot in 8th with what the wrote not actually doing what they ment.
Except before they made point in saying how moving is less of a hindrance thus giving ability to move around. Now backtracking on that.
Well not surprising. GW loves to go back and forth. If they always had to go to new never before they would run out of new ways with inevitable new editions resulting in shut down of 40k
Elbows wrote: It's just lazy. Trying too hard to streamline something that doesn't need streamlining. If a heavy weapon doesn't move...it shouldn't be penalized, full stop. Counterpoint; why do you think it's a good idea?
It helps avoid silly congalines where the heavy weapon guy stands still and everyone else moves forward to grab an objective or something.
I don't really have a horse in the race, I just thought your response seemed pretty harsh.
Ah yes let's penalize for actually doing things sensibly. Heavy support guy standing still and giving support while rest move is actually what happens in reality...
I do not hink it is a nerf at all in any shape or form.. I think this is a massive boost to vast majority of units.
A some infantry units that specialise in heavy weaponry (e.g. havocs) already have a rule that ignores their move penalty, ot there are strats to get around this..
You can finally move your vehicle, monsters, bikes etc and not have to worry about penalty. This is great for units that are supoposed to use their mobility as a wow factor. Things like landspeeders, vypers, skimmers. Currently all suffered from not being ale to fully use their manoeuvrability,
Personally from a logic perspective I think walkers and monsters should still suffer the penalty but any platform as big as a tank should not.
I think this is done as a knee jerk over-correction for whatever the terrain restrictions are going to be meaning the terrain change will be near worthless but we certainly dont know enough and its juts a gut feeling on my part. Certainly not loosing sleep over it.
As it is, for my army this is great news. Maybe I'll finally be able to take some scatter lazors on my units I have not used at all since I started playing again.
Ice_can wrote: I think its the design team changing the RAW to match their RAI.
Seems like they were caught out a lot in 8th with what the wrote not actually doing what they ment.
Except before they made point in saying how moving is less of a hindrance thus giving ability to move around. Now backtracking on that.
Well not surprising. GW loves to go back and forth. If they always had to go to new never before they would run out of new ways with inevitable new editions resulting in shut down of 40k...
Sort of? Everything that isn't Infantry is going to get to be a lot more mobile; the Heavy weapon penalty and the fact that all your tanks just got shut out of the game if one grot got close enough to tag them were large contributors to the stationary castle gunlines of 8e, I think some mixed-weapon infantry units will be less mobile but armies in general will be more mobile.
Ice_can wrote: I think its the design team changing the RAW to match their RAI.
Seems like they were caught out a lot in 8th with what the wrote not actually doing what they ment.
Except before they made point in saying how moving is less of a hindrance thus giving ability to move around. Now backtracking on that.
Well not surprising. GW loves to go back and forth. If they always had to go to new never before they would run out of new ways with inevitable new editions resulting in shut down of 40k...
Sort of? Everything that isn't Infantry is going to get to be a lot more mobile; the Heavy weapon penalty and the fact that all your tanks just got shut out of the game if one grot got close enough to tag them were large contributors to the stationary castle gunlines of 8e, I think some mixed-weapon infantry units will be less mobile but armies in general will be more mobile.
Indeed. Al thats left though is congalining for aruras but its a step in the right direction. It never made sense to me that my grav tank had to sit still or suffer a BS penalty.. Its a damn grav tank.
Light infantry will still be needed in order to form a battalion, score objectives (after all your big toys will be out front and centre engaging. You don't want them "taking an action" to hold an objective if a chaff infantry can do it.
Also you will still want the chaff to absorb smite trains and make characters un-targetable. After all if all of your vehicles can manoeuvre and draw a bead on your warlolrd he really needs to have something to make him un-targetable.
I think he difference is now we are not forced to take like 6 units of troops and can get away with 3 or 1.
Also, like at this point in time I feel like dedicated heavy weapon infantry being able to move and fire is just all over the place, so like, how severe is it? Basically it hits embedded weapons.
This does solve the issue of "Retributors are angry, and therefore suffer no accuracy loss when moving and hip firing, but a tank with guided top-attack missiles [or at the very least stabilizers for a main gun] suddenly has issues shooting straight.
Khornate25 wrote: I love the favt that predators and necrons doom scythes become way better in my opinion.
Oh it’s a massive boon to a lot of vehicles. Especially those focused on speed. My land speeders are going to love it.
I think this thread is more focused on the infantry side of the change.
For the most part, if you were giving foot sloggers heavy weapons they were not going to be shuffling around much anyway. It will impact moving spare bodies around, but honestly it’s mostly corner cases. I don’t think anyone is going to be rewriting their lists over this, or sending models down to the swap shelf.
I think it might be a rule about bookeeping in a competetive setting. It makes it clear what the penalty is and there will be less "forgetful fudging" over individual models. My UM doctrined marines get to ignore it in Tactical Doctrine anyways, because super-doctrines are bonkers.
I think the person who wrote that new rule forgot about the current one.
JNAProductions wrote: It helps avoid silly congalines where the heavy weapon guy stands still and everyone else moves forward to grab an objective or something.
The HW guy covering his squad as they advance is a silly situation, is it?
I think the person who wrote that new rule forgot about the current one.
JNAProductions wrote: It helps avoid silly congalines where the heavy weapon guy stands still and everyone else moves forward to grab an objective or something.
The HW guy covering his squad as they advance is a silly situation, is it?
GW don't like it because it's gaming the system and coubter intuitive to new players this one guy basically can't even be touched or he gets -1 to hit while the rest of the squad can run around in a giant conga line to him. Gamy mechanic because they didn't intend people to explote their writing the way they did.
Also -1 to hit, so 4+ or 5+ for most armies is still way better than the snapshooting 6's only of everyone who likes to complains favourite 7th edition.
I'll be honest and say I didn't even notice we could leave the heavy weapon stationary in a unit to avoid the -1 in 8th. It wasn't really something that came up much to notice it though.
It's a price I'll happily pay to get my Sentinel walkers running and gunning again, as well as multi meltas on hellhounds now not being entirely useless too.
JNAProductions wrote: It helps avoid silly congalines where the heavy weapon guy stands still and everyone else moves forward to grab an objective or something.
The HW guy covering his squad as they advance is a silly situation, is it?
It isn't a silly situation, but it's a skirmish game mechanic hiding in too large of a wargame.
Insectum7 wrote: I think it might be a rule about bookeeping in a competetive setting. It makes it clear what the penalty is and there will be less "forgetful fudging" over individual models. My UM doctrined marines get to ignore it in Tactical Doctrine anyways, because super-doctrines are bonkers.
My thought exactly. It is easier to have to remember did unit X move rather than did model A in uint X move, especially for your opponent.
AnomanderRake wrote: It isn't a silly situation, but it's a skirmish game mechanic hiding in too large of a wargame.
So what feels more natural: The HW being able to fire as normal when other people around him move, or the HW guy forgetting how to use his gun properly because one guy shifted forward to get into range?
AnomanderRake wrote: It isn't a silly situation, but it's a skirmish game mechanic hiding in too large of a wargame.
So what feels more natural: The HW being able to fire as normal when other people around him move, or the HW guy forgetting how to use his gun properly because one guy shifted forward to get into range?
The ability to leave the HW guy behind (maybe with a guard) and move forwards with everyone else.
AnomanderRake wrote: It isn't a silly situation, but it's a skirmish game mechanic hiding in too large of a wargame.
So what feels more natural: The HW being able to fire as normal when other people around him move, or the HW guy forgetting how to use his gun properly because one guy shifted forward to get into range?
The ability to leave the HW guy behind (maybe with a guard) and move forwards with everyone else.
I like the change not for fluff sake, but for my sake.Trying to keep track of whether or not I moved the heavy weapon guy (or making sure I didn't) over 5-6 units was enough of a pain, watching my opponent for the same reason? Ridiculous. (and if you never had to do this, good for you.)
Ah. Well, that's not quite accurate as it's not done freely and it's not just the heavy weapon model. But sorta. It's nowhere near the 2nd Ed IG Heavy Weapons team becoming independent ability that was alluded to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: If you were planning on firing the HW guy, wouldn't the default be "I better not move him!".
Hasn't GW flip flopped the squad vs model heavy weapon penalty every single edition? It'd be bad form to stop now. I really don't care on the infantry side, both approaches have their upsides.
I definitely like the change from the vehicle side, maybe one day I can field a land speeder again.
bort wrote: Hasn't GW flip flopped the squad vs model heavy weapon penalty every single edition? It'd be bad form to stop now. I really don't care on the infantry side, both approaches have their upsides.
I definitely like the change from the vehicle side, maybe one day I can field a land speeder again.
I think this change really makes small skimmers look much more interesting based on whats revealed so far. Especially if the boards are about to get a lot more dense, mobility should hopefully come into its own.
Argive wrote: I think this change really makes small skimmers look much more interesting based on whats revealed so far. Especially if the boards are about to get a lot more dense, mobility should hopefully come into its own.
I think the person who wrote that new rule forgot about the current one.
JNAProductions wrote: It helps avoid silly congalines where the heavy weapon guy stands still and everyone else moves forward to grab an objective or something.
The HW guy covering his squad as they advance is a silly situation, is it?
GW don't like it because it's gaming the system and coubter intuitive to new players this one guy basically can't even be touched or he gets -1 to hit while the rest of the squad can run around in a giant conga line to him. Gamy mechanic because they didn't intend people to explote their writing the way they did.
Also -1 to hit, so 4+ or 5+ for most armies is still way better than the snapshooting 6's only of everyone who likes to complains favourite 7th edition.
So people gamed that rule for 3 editions and GW just noticed ? They must not have cared too much then.
Obviously this is good news for vehicles of all types, bad news for infantry.
Makes sense why some dedicated heavy weapon groups can move and fire with no penalty, makes you wonder if you'll see more squads like that gain rules to let them move and shoot fine. I don't really mind too much as they can still fire and if there is a limit to modifiers that sounds good to me as well. The big issue is flat costs for units heavy weapons makes this less cool than in edition past. However, that may change some coming up.
It doesn't make any sense why squads would jostle the heavy weapon all the time, I don't think its gamey at all that other squad members would move around and let him stand still to fire, for me makes less sense they'd always elbow him. This may all be a rather dumb talking point as if you need to do actions to take objectives its possible those squads we are speaking of will spend lots of time doing other things other than shooting most turns anyways so this may all be an academic problem and if so I don't see why infantry would need to suffer a step back while vehicles get multiple steps forward. Why change the rule back to old editions when they thought it worked great for three editions ?
They never can seem to get their head around if they want vehicles to move, shoot, move and shoot or anything in between. I wonder how they'll totally change around in 10th edition and even through the course of this edition. Heres the thing, Land raider Crusaders will be good, how long will it take them to nerf vehicles shooting again because GW can't allow any Land raiders to be worth it. I say like half a year before they nerf vehicle shooting.
I think the person who wrote that new rule forgot about the current one.
JNAProductions wrote: It helps avoid silly congalines where the heavy weapon guy stands still and everyone else moves forward to grab an objective or something.
The HW guy covering his squad as they advance is a silly situation, is it?
GW don't like it because it's gaming the system and coubter intuitive to new players this one guy basically can't even be touched or he gets -1 to hit while the rest of the squad can run around in a giant conga line to him. Gamy mechanic because they didn't intend people to explote their writing the way they did.
Also -1 to hit, so 4+ or 5+ for most armies is still way better than the snapshooting 6's only of everyone who likes to complains favourite 7th edition.
Gamey mechanic is unintuitive rules. Model not moving not suffering penalty is intuitive. It's what you would expect from logical point of view. Its direct opposite of gamey rule
AnomanderRake wrote: It isn't a silly situation, but it's a skirmish game mechanic hiding in too large of a wargame.
So what feels more natural: The HW being able to fire as normal when other people around him move, or the HW guy forgetting how to use his gun properly because one guy shifted forward to get into range?
It's a matter of consistency. If a vehicle pivots around its corner such that its footprint on the table changes the whole vehicle is deemed to have "moved", even if some bits of the model didn't physically move. If an infantry unit moves some models but not others such that the unit's footprint on the table changes the whole unit is deemed to have "moved", even if some individual models didn't physically move. The game is an abstraction. If you want to argue about the irrationality of penalizing the whole unit if some of the unit moved we should talk about the irrationality of energy-shield bubbles working on units with one model toeing into the radius no matter how insane a geometry of the shield that creates, or using a single pose of a model for line of sight for the enemy but then ignoring it yourself when shooting through other members of your unit, or the fact that if I crack my Knights off their bases suddenly they can attack upper floors of buildings just fine without needing to spend CP, or any number of other things. There are games with no bizarre abstractions, but they're skirmish games where you're simulating a fight between two squads of 5-10 guys. They're fun but that's another genre of game, which isn't one GW is designing here. And isn't one they're interested in designing, given how many bizarre abstractions still litter Kill-Team.
Spoletta wrote: The tyranids have exactly 1 heavy weapon and it is on an infantry model which is often taken in a one bug squad.
Literally nothing changes for the hyve players.
A little more than that. Tyranid heavy weapons exist on Exocrines, Tyrannofexes, Hive Guard, and Biovores (plus a couple of the forgeworld beasties). Only the Hive Guard and Biovores are infantry though.
But yes, the vast majority of tyranid ranged weapons are Assault.
This rule makes me wonder if GW intends to continue the trend of mono weapon squads. It seems to me like lately the idea of special weapons and heavy weapons in squads is going away. Instead all squad members have special weapons. Like the hellblasters and such.
Nerak wrote: This rule makes me wonder if GW intends to continue the trend of mono weapon squads. It seems to me like lately the idea of special weapons and heavy weapons in squads is going away. Instead all squad members have special weapons. Like the hellblasters and such.
That's a good point. It would be a minor nerf to tacticals which ends up pushing Primaris.
I think the penalty for the MODEL moving was better.
I do think they should have kept some sort of penalty for any model, infantry or vehicle if it had a heavy weapon and moved (or if the target was advancing), though -1 to hit might not have been the best idea. It should be more difficult to tag a moving target, but perhaps the better option would have been to give attackers using Heavy weapons an extra shot if they remain still (since Heavy weapons usually have such low number of shots). Vehicles like tanks may have been allowed a half move and still get the extra shot.
So, in a manner of speaking, reward players for acting how you want to, rather than penalizing them when they don't.
It's another significant step into making SM even more competitive.
It's amazing how we started with heavy weapons disallowed to fire if they moved, improved into hit on 6s, then buffed with just a -1 to hit penalty and now they have no penalty at all.
So why even bother with the heavy/assault label then?
But also unless a lot of those MC change they wont be moving and shooting b.c they can Double shoot if they don't. Biovores also don't need to move and if they do and miss,w ell you "kinda" don't miss and it could be better for you at times to miss.
But yeah there is more heavy weapons, but still not a lot. IMO Nids has the BEST gun in the game, sadly nids have it.... the HVC, its an Assault D3 shots Str 9, -2ap 3D! For less than 20pts!!! Imagine is Eldar or Marines has that on HQ's, Fast, and Heavy slot units and a Str 8 version on Troops lol.
But yeah there is more heavy weapons, but still not a lot. IMO Nids has the BEST gun in the game, sadly nids have it.... the HVC, its an Assault D3 shots Str 9, -2ap 3D! For less than 20pts!!! Imagine is Eldar or Marines has that on HQ's, Fast, and Heavy slot units and a Str 8 version on Troops lol.
You really think venom cannons are the best gun in the game? Odd take.
We've had those for two and a half years now, and last I looked, they still aren't breaking the game in half.
Just looking at the point cost of the gun doesn't tell the full story. You have to look at the full cost of the unit. That's where they get expensive.
But yeah there is more heavy weapons, but still not a lot. IMO Nids has the BEST gun in the game, sadly nids have it.... the HVC, its an Assault D3 shots Str 9, -2ap 3D! For less than 20pts!!! Imagine is Eldar or Marines has that on HQ's, Fast, and Heavy slot units and a Str 8 version on Troops lol.
You really think venom cannons are the best gun in the game? Odd take. We've had those for two and a half years now, and last I looked, they still aren't breaking the game in half. Just looking at the point cost of the gun doesn't tell the full story. You have to look at the full cost of the unit. That's where they get expensive.
And Again the "gun" as i said, sadly its on nids and not CWE/SM, the gun it self not the army using the gun. If Wraithlords, Turrets, WS's, Falcons, and 5-6 other units could take 1-2 of them like nids oh boy lol.
But yeah there is more heavy weapons, but still not a lot. IMO Nids has the BEST gun in the game, sadly nids have it.... the HVC, its an Assault D3 shots Str 9, -2ap 3D! For less than 20pts!!! Imagine is Eldar or Marines has that on HQ's, Fast, and Heavy slot units and a Str 8 version on Troops lol.
You really think venom cannons are the best gun in the game? Odd take. We've had those for two and a half years now, and last I looked, they still aren't breaking the game in half. Just looking at the point cost of the gun doesn't tell the full story. You have to look at the full cost of the unit. That's where they get expensive.
And Again the "gun" as i said, sadly its on nids and not CWE/SM, the gun it self not the army using the gun. If Wraithlords, Turrets, WS's, Falcons, and 5-6 other units could take 1-2 of them like nids oh boy lol.
Ah right. Sure I suppose. If nids had a bunch of platforms like those that could wield multiple of them for cheap then they would indeed be powerful. I think that's factored into the design though. They get a good gun, but they can't field a huge number of them compared to the number of lascannons/eldar lances/etc you can cram into other armies.
By that metric I'd personally look at orks to find a large collection of guns that would be broken if put into an army with a higher ballistic skill.
Nerak wrote: This rule makes me wonder if GW intends to continue the trend of mono weapon squads. It seems to me like lately the idea of special weapons and heavy weapons in squads is going away. Instead all squad members have special weapons. Like the hellblasters and such.
That's a good point. It would be a minor nerf to tacticals which ends up pushing Primaris.
Personally I'm okay with this. It's only a -1 to hit. Not like in a previous edition where if anyone in the unit moved no heavy weapons could fire at all.
Nerak wrote: This rule makes me wonder if GW intends to continue the trend of mono weapon squads. It seems to me like lately the idea of special weapons and heavy weapons in squads is going away. Instead all squad members have special weapons. Like the hellblasters and such.
That's a good point. It would be a minor nerf to tacticals which ends up pushing Primaris.
And, as usual, hits csm as well.
I hadn't thought of that. So tacticals and csm are iconic units that have the majority of models per unit without heavy weapons and one or two with special/heavy weapons.
Are there any other common/iconic units that will suffer from this? Or do most units these days come with the same loadout for all the models in the unit?
Elbows wrote: What's wrong with being harsh? If anything, in this kind of situation, a conga-line is actually a logical thing. It would represent a heavy weapon providing covering fire while someone does sneak out and grab the objective - assuming we ignore the silliness of walking around a table to stand on a token as a "wargame objective".
Note: this is only necessitated because of squad coherency which is a necessary evil. Back in 2nd edition Imperial Guard squads could detach their heavy weapon for precisely this reason; providing covering fire while the squad maneuvers, etc. 40K isn't much of a wargame, but rules changes like this are making it even less so.
Personally, I welcome anything that makes conga-lines go away.
Nerak wrote: This rule makes me wonder if GW intends to continue the trend of mono weapon squads. It seems to me like lately the idea of special weapons and heavy weapons in squads is going away. Instead all squad members have special weapons. Like the hellblasters and such.
That's a good point. It would be a minor nerf to tacticals which ends up pushing Primaris.
And, as usual, hits csm as well.
I hadn't thought of that. So tacticals and csm are iconic units that have the majority of models per unit without heavy weapons and one or two with special/heavy weapons.
Are there any other common/iconic units that will suffer from this? Or do most units these days come with the same loadout for all the models in the unit?
Terminators, guardsmen, and cultists come immediately to mind.
3rd-5th: heavy weapons could not even fire if the unit moved.
6th & 7th: had the -1 to hit if the unit moved.
8th was the first edition in 20 years where heavy weapons went to model-based movement issues, but it also screwed up with vehicles.
Vehicles and heavies also had a different relationship with movement:
3rd-4th was set movement amounts and a number of weapons(heavy or other) allowed to even fire.
At some point str 6, and then str 5 and below weapons were always able to fire.
8th penalized all vehicle movement and Heavy weapons, this was not good. Not even half the armies/vehicles that are supposed to be mobile fire support had any sort of mitigating rules to deal with the penalties.
In short: the infantry model held to the unit's movement is a step back, but at least you can still fire at a penalty, and at least it still cleans up some issues. It would be nice if some specific units got thier move-and-fire abilities back(the USR formerly known as Relentless).
Blackie wrote: It's another significant step into making SM even more competitive.
It's amazing how we started with heavy weapons disallowed to fire if they moved, improved into hit on 6s, then buffed with just a -1 to hit penalty and now they have no penalty at all.
So why even bother with the heavy/assault label then?
Its gone back forth thorugh different editions.
To be fair its not just Marines, Sisters got Retibutors ignoring Heavy Weapon penalties if they move in their 8th /8.5 Codex.
I would love there to have been a proper 40K Index style update book for all armies rather than dozens of faq pdf pages to print out....again
Fundamentally, model level bookkeeping with up to 200 models on a table is pretty bad game design. “This squad did this, this squad did that” is way easier for both players to track through the turn.
Nerak wrote: This rule makes me wonder if GW intends to continue the trend of mono weapon squads. It seems to me like lately the idea of special weapons and heavy weapons in squads is going away. Instead all squad members have special weapons. Like the hellblasters and such.
That's a good point. It would be a minor nerf to tacticals which ends up pushing Primaris.
And, as usual, hits csm as well.
I hadn't thought of that. So tacticals and csm are iconic units that have the majority of models per unit without heavy weapons and one or two with special/heavy weapons.
Are there any other common/iconic units that will suffer from this? Or do most units these days come with the same loadout for all the models in the unit?
Terminators, guardsmen, and cultists come immediately to mind.
I'll be honest, I had not even looked at my Terminator's Data Sheet throughout all of 8th; while they lost mitigation for move and shoot heavy, the other named units should not have such mitigation.
Guardsmen are either a single model with heavy in a unit without, or a unit full of heavies. I don't often move my units with heavies to begin with(set them up on/near home objectives, move to objective first turn, sit and fire rest of game)
Cultists: why are you even taking the stubber? and even if you are for an autogun/back field objective holder... see guardsmen.
Tactical squads are not "suffering" either; you finally had a reason in the last few editions to take Multi-meltas on infantry(3rd-5th, you shouldn't have bothered other than to create a 13" radius zone of "no" to vehicles, but said zone was stationary all game), now you are either combat squadding the heavy into a stationary point or shooting like a guardsman with it on the move. spreading the unit out for the sake of avoiding a minor penalty is not good tactics(and was often going to cause coherency issues with your close-ranged special/melee guy being on the other end of your congaline to your heavy weapon, he was either going to have to move anyway, or your closer-to-enemy elements were going to have to move back).
MaxT wrote: Fundamentally, model level bookkeeping with up to 200 models on a table is pretty bad game design. “This squad did this, this squad did that” is way easier for both players to track through the turn.
3rd-5th: heavy weapons could not even fire if the unit moved.
6th & 7th: had the -1 to hit if the unit moved.
-1 to hit penalty for heavy weapons is an 8th edition thing. It used to be hit on 6s regardless of the BS value in those editions.
It wasn't a big deal that penalty in 8th edition as tanks with heavy weapons are tipycally BS3+ so they hit on 4s if they move. Razorbacks with twin ass cannons or twin lascannons always did good for with my SW, even if they were considered sub optimal choices in a sub optimal army. But that's a misconception, those tanks are actually good even with the -1 to hit thing if they move, and SW aren't bad at all: both are simply outperformed by other units/chapters.
MaxT wrote: Fundamentally, model level bookkeeping with up to 200 models on a table is pretty bad game design. “This squad did this, this squad did that” is way easier for both players to track through the turn.
Agreed.
You'd have a point if the game weren't IGOUGO and it wasn't already easy to remember those things to begin with. Comparing that situation to bookkeeping is stupidly misleading.
Somebody mentioned changes to auras and I am willing to bet we'll see wholly within auras like they have in AoS. AoS 1.0 had 40k auras and it meant there were silly congalines all over the map. Nowadays they've changed it to wholly within and you now actually have to think about how you move your units while reaping benefits from heroes. Imo a much better system and not as silly.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Forget it. I'm not arguing with people who think that "But it's an abstraction!!!" constitutes a valid counter-argument for bad rules design.
3rd-5th: heavy weapons could not even fire if the unit moved.
6th & 7th: had the -1 to hit if the unit moved.
-1 to hit penalty for heavy weapons is an 8th edition thing. It used to be hit on 6s regardless of the BS value in those editions.
It wasn't a big deal that penalty in 8th edition as tanks with heavy weapons are tipycally BS3+ so they hit on 4s if they move. Razorbacks with twin ass cannons or twin lascannons always did good for with my SW, even if they were considered sub optimal choices in a sub optimal army. But that's a misconception, those tanks are actually good even with the -1 to hit thing if they move, and SW aren't bad at all: both are simply outperformed by other units/chapters.
I knew there was a portion I was missing.
so it was 6th with S6 and less weapons full fire, and 7th with s5 and less right? trying to remember the specifics across 6 editions, and what was where without searching up the old rules is hard.
and while move-and-fire at -1 with heavies isn't that bad on it's own, it does cause issue with BS4+ and 5+ armies, especially when their vehicles/Monsters are supposed to be mobile fire support. If you get dropped to hitting less than half shots whil moving, you are not mobile fire support(guard, Taj, Admech, Nids and stealer cults, DEldar, CEldar, and Orks to some degree, basically most armies).
Martel732 wrote: I've got dozens of heavy weapon marines. This is fine in my book. A vehicle mounted autocannon should have an advantage over a dude slinging one.
I wonder if the point values between the two will differ as a result.
MaxT wrote: Fundamentally, model level bookkeeping with up to 200 models on a table is pretty bad game design. “This squad did this, this squad did that” is way easier for both players to track through the turn.
Agreed.
You'd have a point if the game weren't IGOUGO and it wasn't already easy to remember those things to begin with. Comparing that situation to bookkeeping is stupidly misleading.
Easy to remember... for you
MaxT isn't comparing the situation to bookkeeping. The posters you quote are talking about the process of 'bookkeeping' as in 'keeping track of your models and what's going on'.
I don't understand why some people are upset by this change. The VAST majority of INFANTRY units either don't have access to Heavy weapons, are mostly Heavy weapons (Devs/Havocs) or have the OPTION to just not take that 1 Heavy.
So this affects....Tac Marines really. So either don't move your bolter Marines or don't take the Heavy in the first place.
Regardless of whether you agree that this will streamline the game or not, it absolutely WILL make games faster.
Because you won't have players taking time to precisely conga line their units to maximize weapon ranges.
This will also encourage army building will units that have more similar models. Whether you like that or not (I'm on the fence myself as I like units with diverse models) you cannot deny that it will make for quicker, easier to learn games
MJRyder wrote: Agreed ^. It also makes the game far more accessible to new players.
I really don't think that's a particular hang up of new players.
Maybe not on its own, but speaking from personal experience teaching my own teens to play 40k, it's much easier to remember that unit A or B moved than keeping track of each individual model. Especially when they don't have the attention span to finish a 1000pt game in a single sitting.
Seriously, I've all but stopped playing with my oldest son because he loses interest after turn 2 just about every game. And it's 90% how complicated the game is, 10% because video games have spoiled him. Well, maybe 50/50
With all that you already have to keep track of, one less thing can make a difference. Several things less to keep track of is even better.
MJRyder wrote: Agreed ^. It also makes the game far more accessible to new players.
I really don't think that's a particular hang up of new players.
Intermediate players is probably a fairer description, trying to take narrative or less experienced competitive playerd through some of the ways that the 8th edition rules could be gamed was never an easy or fun task and alot of it boiled down to that's dumb it just be simpler.
I gest some people might enjoy micro managing coherency and conga lines and all of the idd exploits but they where a PITA to explain to people and resulted in a lot of feel bad gotcha moments that in the grand scheme of 8th added minimal tactical choice and a lot of rules lawyering.
^Imo the mechanic could swing either way for new players. I wouldn't be surprised if someone was put off that they couldn't avoid the penalty by having that model stand still. I think the biggest hurdle for new players is game size, and the most successful intro games I've run/seen have tended to be just a couple squads in size, in which case it's not an issue.
I agree that the ruling is at least partly for the sake of bookkeeping, I just don't think it's a sticking point for new players.
That said, I would not be surprised if the other impetus for the rule is to help differentiate vehicles and infantry more, for either A: (cynical) to keep the rules churn going, and B: (positive) because tanks and infantry really should behave quite differently.
Martel732 wrote: I've got dozens of heavy weapon marines. This is fine in my book. A vehicle mounted autocannon should have an advantage over a dude slinging one.
I wonder if the point values between the two will differ as a result.
Aash wrote: I mentioned this in the news and rumours thread, but that thread is moving so quickly I thought I’d post it here.
What’s everyone’s thoughts on the new rule for heavy weapon infantry? Seems a pretty major change that will change the way a lot of units function.
8th edition heavy weapons are -1 to hit if the MODEL moves. 9th edition heavy weapons get -1 to hit if the UNIT moves (only for infantry).
Personally I think that’s a big change. What do you all think?
I like this.
For me, it's a lot more interesting of a game if the units hit on higher numbers, rather than seeing everyone boosting to the point that rolling is nearly unneeded. I mean I can set up my oblits to roll on a 2+ re-rolling 1s which is pretty stupid. Why even roll at that point?
With more negative modifiers, units won't be quite as effective in mass and I feel like tanks and walkers will be much more viable, especially since (rightfully) they don't have this problem now!
Times were different in the 80's- no net, no smartphones, and videogames were sprite based side scrollers.
But wow.
I played my first game of AD&D in grade 3, and was regularly GMing for the adults in my life as well as my friends within the year; I would have been 10 by then.
I wrote my first RPG when I was 12, based on the old Micronaut toys and comics.
It is utterly alien to me that people think Warhammer 40k is hard to play or teach. I had a grade 7/8 split class, intensive support, meaning every student had been diagnosed with either a behavioural disorder or learning disability. I taught them all how to build scenery, how to use textured paint, how to dry brush. We built a non-scale model of Vimy Ridge for history class one day and played 40k on it.
Granted, I was never a typical kid- I hated sports and outdoors, and I think I was reading Stephen King by the time I turned 12- not bragging about the reading level here; it's well documented that King's writing typically reads at the grade 5 level- it's the subject matter that gets most people when I tell them stories of my youth.
In my first practicum placement to become a teacher, my associate teacher told me something I've never forgotten. He said, "These kids will rise... Or sink... To meet your expectations."
I don't understand why some people are upset by this change. The VAST majority of INFANTRY units either don't have access to Heavy weapons, are mostly Heavy weapons (Devs/Havocs) or have the OPTION to just not take that 1 Heavy.
As many have pointed out, we had this rule in previous editions, and in those editions, the majority of Infantry still didn't carry heavy weapons. So that was true back then as well. The thing is, even with that being true, it heavily contributed to static game play. My issue with this change is that, one of the common complaints of 8th is that movement doesn't seem to matter like it should. One of the complaints of the last several editions is that static gunlines are both very powerful, too prevelant, and un-fun to play against. This rule helps contribute to BOTH of those problems.
IMO, as adjustments go, the bad points outweigh any potential good points (and even the "good" points are dubious) here.
^I don't think it will contribute THAT much to static gunlines. The prior-to-8th restrictions on shooting were far greater, and <8th didn't feel particularly static. Plus it looks like 9th ed Vehicles will be trucking around firing just fine.
if GW makes tanks, vehicles and armed transports much better then infantry on foot, this ain't going to be much of a problem.
Game will be dynamic, with lots of movment and no accuracy lost.
and while move-and-fire at -1 with heavies isn't that bad on it's own, it does cause issue with BS4+ and 5+ armies, especially when their vehicles/Monsters are supposed to be mobile fire support. If you get dropped to hitting less than half shots whil moving, you are not mobile fire support(guard, Taj, Admech, Nids and stealer cults, DEldar, CEldar, and Orks to some degree, basically most armies).
Most of those armies aren't affect at all by the penalty though. Orks don't have a single vehicle that suffers that -1 penalty, there's basically just the gunwagon, which doesn't want to move anyway (it'll lose the ability to shoot twice), while drukhari's vehicles never suffer that penalty as "heavy weapons" become "assault weapons" if mounted on vehicles and coven monsters have assault or rapid fire weapons. Guard tanks have long range weapons and couldn't care less about moving, etc...
and while move-and-fire at -1 with heavies isn't that bad on it's own, it does cause issue with BS4+ and 5+ armies, especially when their vehicles/Monsters are supposed to be mobile fire support. If you get dropped to hitting less than half shots whil moving, you are not mobile fire support(guard, Taj, Admech, Nids and stealer cults, DEldar, CEldar, and Orks to some degree, basically most armies).
Most of those armies aren't affect at all by the penalty though. Orks don't have a single vehicle that suffers that -1 penalty, there's basically just the gunwagon, which doesn't want to move anyway (it'll lose the ability to shoot twice), while drukhari's vehicles never suffer that penalty as "heavy weapons" become "assault weapons" if mounted on vehicles and coven monsters have assault or rapid fire weapons. Guard tanks have long range weapons and couldn't care less about moving, etc...
Yeah, and those were many of the viable vehicles. IG is getting a lot of buffs, but we need to see the rest of the rules and point values.
^I don't think it will contribute THAT much to static gunlines. The prior-to-8th restrictions on shooting were far greater, and <8th didn't feel particularly static. Plus it looks like 9th ed Vehicles will be trucking around firing just fine.
Yeah. I mean, I'm not claiming it's a huge effect or a major contributing factor or anything like that. Just that, if anything, the most likely effect this will have will be to either further contribute to people simply not taking troops (something that seems more and more likely with each preview of 9th), and/or that it will contribute to static game play. I can't really think of any legit "positives" for it, so to me, it just feels like a solution looking for a problem.
considering valkyries were penalized for moving, and obtained advantages for hovering, it was better for that aircraft to stand still than actually fly around the battlefield.
Also the fact that some aircraft simply had better bs scores to compensate, while others did not have the -1 modifier. This is overall a positive change IMO.
^I don't think it will contribute THAT much to static gunlines. The prior-to-8th restrictions on shooting were far greater, and <8th didn't feel particularly static. Plus it looks like 9th ed Vehicles will be trucking around firing just fine.
Yeah. I mean, I'm not claiming it's a huge effect or a major contributing factor or anything like that. Just that, if anything, the most likely effect this will have will be to either further contribute to people simply not taking troops (something that seems more and more likely with each preview of 9th), and/or that it will contribute to static game play. I can't really think of any legit "positives" for it, so to me, it just feels like a solution looking for a problem.
Ehh, I'd wait until we see the full rule set and point value before making any judgement call on that front. Tanks could shoot way up in price, Infantry might get double-cover bonuses. Who knows?
Still hoping every model in the squad can use a grenade in CC against Vehicles a-la 1st-through-fething-6th edition.
I find myself going back and forth on this, but generally lean to this being a positive change.
On the one hand, in 8th it's fair to assume that a heavy weapon has stayed still while the rest of its unit has moved. It wasn't too hard to see whether an opponent has moved their heavy weapons models.
On the other hand, it helps to speed the game up by stopping players from carefully conga-lining to take objectives/get in range of auras/etc.
When 8th edition changed the way blast weapons or vehicle facings worked, the time saving wasn't in the use of blast weapons or checking armour facings/firing arcs. The time saving was in the preparation; players would always spend minutes spreading their units out to maximum coherency to avoid blasts, or angling their tanks just so in order to get the right armour facings.
I see this change as being along the same lines. While I do prefer the current rule (where only the model mattered for moving), changing it to be unit-based cuts out one of those little things that everyone does, and is one less thing to have to be extra careful about.
The ultimate effect IMHO is that heavy weapons will be relegated to heavy specialists (Devastators, HWS, Havocs, etc) and vehicles, while line infantry like Tacticals and CSM will be given mostly Assault weapons so they can move up and take objectives without finessing individual model movement, like they're supposed to.
Cheex wrote: The ultimate effect IMHO is that heavy weapons will be relegated to heavy specialists (Devastators, HWS, Havocs, etc) and vehicles, while line infantry like Tacticals and CSM will be given mostly Assault weapons so they can move up and take objectives without finessing individual model movement, like they're supposed to.
Speaking as a guy who ran heavy weapons in his Tactical squads when they couldn't even fire if one model in the squad moved, and couldn't target separate units with the heavy weapon, you're very wrong. The increase in range and damage output provided by the Heavy Weapon is still extremely high, and extremely worthwhile.
Cheex wrote: The ultimate effect IMHO is that heavy weapons will be relegated to heavy specialists (Devastators, HWS, Havocs, etc) and vehicles, while line infantry like Tacticals and CSM will be given mostly Assault weapons so they can move up and take objectives without finessing individual model movement, like they're supposed to.
Speaking as a guy who ran heavy weapons in his Tactical squads when they couldn't even fire if one model in the squad moved, and couldn't target separate units with the heavy weapon, you're very wrong. The increase in range and damage output provided by the Heavy Weapon is still extremely high, and extremely worthwhile.
I don't think marine heavy weapons are that great. At least, not enough to justify their cost on a 1W guy.
Still hoping every model in the squad can use a grenade in CC against Vehicles a-la 1st-through-fething-6th edition.
<Cries in melta bomb>
Even if it’s just one guy in the squad, a well placed krack grenade or melta bomb gives the humble footslogger a chance against tough stuff. If not in CC, at least be able to replace a pistol shot when stuck in and shooting
Insectum7 wrote:
Cheex wrote: The ultimate effect IMHO is that heavy weapons will be relegated to heavy specialists (Devastators, HWS, Havocs, etc) and vehicles, while line infantry like Tacticals and CSM will be given mostly Assault weapons so they can move up and take objectives without finessing individual model movement, like they're supposed to.
Speaking as a guy who ran heavy weapons in his Tactical squads when they couldn't even fire if one model in the squad moved, and couldn't target separate units with the heavy weapon, you're very wrong. The increase in range and damage output provided by the Heavy Weapon is still extremely high, and extremely worthwhile.
Heavy weapons in forward deployed tac squads have served me well. They tend to be forgotten and have made me some game winning shots. This was more relevant with armor facings and directional wounds. Slapping a krack missile into someone’s flank could yield solid results.
And I’ll admit, there are games where the guy with the ML did nothing but shoot his pistol on the move and then eventually die. But those were the minority.
Cheex wrote: The ultimate effect IMHO is that heavy weapons will be relegated to heavy specialists (Devastators, HWS, Havocs, etc) and vehicles, while line infantry like Tacticals and CSM will be given mostly Assault weapons so they can move up and take objectives without finessing individual model movement, like they're supposed to.
Speaking as a guy who ran heavy weapons in his Tactical squads when they couldn't even fire if one model in the squad moved, and couldn't target separate units with the heavy weapon, you're very wrong. The increase in range and damage output provided by the Heavy Weapon is still extremely high, and extremely worthwhile.
I don't think marine heavy weapons are that great. At least, not enough to justify their cost on a 1W guy.
Csm like our chaincannons and auto cannons. Good for chewing up infantry or plinking at distant targets while sitting on objectives respectively.
Cheex wrote: The ultimate effect IMHO is that heavy weapons will be relegated to heavy specialists (Devastators, HWS, Havocs, etc) and vehicles, while line infantry like Tacticals and CSM will be given mostly Assault weapons so they can move up and take objectives without finessing individual model movement, like they're supposed to.
Speaking as a guy who ran heavy weapons in his Tactical squads when they couldn't even fire if one model in the squad moved, and couldn't target separate units with the heavy weapon, you're very wrong. The increase in range and damage output provided by the Heavy Weapon is still extremely high, and extremely worthwhile.
I don't think marine heavy weapons are that great. At least, not enough to justify their cost on a 1W guy.
Csm like our chaincannons and auto cannons. Good for chewing up infantry or plinking at distant targets while sitting on objectives respectively.
The EMPRAH marines don't get those. Two single shot crap weapons. A third is mostly single shot with a terrible blast mode. That leaves plasma cannon, grav cannon, heavy bolter. I just don't find any of those weapons inspiring anymore. Grav cannons are good in a primaris meta, but if draw demons or Drukhari, you are so boned.
Insectum7 wrote: Las, Plas, Grav are the loyalist triumvirate of goodness. Modify for your chapter tactics. Plasma might be getting even better with blast.
Lascannons are pure crap. The other two are decent, but grav is a real gamble at its pricepoint. They're even less good on 1W models.
Cheex wrote: The ultimate effect IMHO is that heavy weapons will be relegated to heavy specialists (Devastators, HWS, Havocs, etc) and vehicles, while line infantry like Tacticals and CSM will be given mostly Assault weapons so they can move up and take objectives without finessing individual model movement, like they're supposed to.
Speaking as a guy who ran heavy weapons in his Tactical squads when they couldn't even fire if one model in the squad moved, and couldn't target separate units with the heavy weapon, you're very wrong. The increase in range and damage output provided by the Heavy Weapon is still extremely high, and extremely worthwhile.
I don't think marine heavy weapons are that great. At least, not enough to justify their cost on a 1W guy.
Csm like our chaincannons and auto cannons. Good for chewing up infantry or plinking at distant targets while sitting on objectives respectively.
The EMPRAH marines don't get those. Two single shot crap weapons. A third is mostly single shot with a terrible blast mode. That leaves plasma cannon, grav cannon, heavy bolter. I just don't find any of those weapons inspiring anymore. Grav cannons are good in a primaris meta, but if draw demons or Drukhari, you are so boned.
Well, us filthy heretics have to have something you loyalist dogs don't. Maybe it's time you traded your Twilight Marines for some with a bit more of a Vlad Tepes flavor.
No, I'm fine with it. Marine heavy weapons used to be better than they are now. The CSM toys just translate better in 8th. ACs are particularly useful.
Insectum7 wrote: Las, Plas, Grav are the loyalist triumvirate of goodness. Modify for your chapter tactics. Plasma might be getting even better with blast.
Lascannons are pure crap. The other two are decent, but grav is a real gamble at its pricepoint. They're even less good on 1W models.
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree then, noted grumbler. Good range and wounding T8 on a 3+ leaving only a roll of 2 without a reroll is good stuff.
Insectum7 wrote: Las, Plas, Grav are the loyalist triumvirate of goodness. Modify for your chapter tactics. Plasma might be getting even better with blast.
Lascannons are pure crap. The other two are decent, but grav is a real gamble at its pricepoint. They're even less good on 1W models.
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree then, noted grumbler. Good range and wounding T8 on a 3+ leaving only a roll of 2 without a reroll is good stuff.
One shot is an absolute deal breaker. It doesn't matter what you're wounding on. It's much better vs the Imperium than its actual foes.
Martel732 wrote: I've got dozens of heavy weapon marines. This is fine in my book. A vehicle mounted autocannon should have an advantage over a dude slinging one.
I wonder if the point values between the two will differ as a result.
Or is it baked into the fire platform?
I think perhaps no since many vehicles can go between blast and direct-fire weapons. Making the platform more could dissuade anything, but blast weapons. There was, however, a comment GW made and I can't remember if it was an article or a stream where they mentioned something about changing how points are distributed - or something to that effect. Or maybe I'm going nuts.
One shot is an absolute deal breaker. It doesn't matter what you're wounding on. It's much better vs the Imperium than its actual foes.
Guess what the meta is these days.
But it wasn't for a long time. I get the impression you think grav is good in general. It's only good in a primaris meta, imo. And even then, you are putting them on paper dolls.
It's good against Leman Russes, CSM, Tau, Carnifexes, Jetbikes etc. It's pretty rare that an army doesnt have a reasonable target. Better than the Autocannon you laud so heavily against most vehicles and elites, then better against targets like lesser daemons just by virtue of number of shots.
I'm not sure its better for the cost. And I don't like the range at all. But it does get a lot of shots. It just needs to be cheaper or go on a better platform.
Insectum7 wrote: It's good against Leman Russes, CSM, Tau, Carnifexes, Jetbikes etc. It's pretty rare that an army doesnt have a reasonable target. Better than the Autocannon you laud so heavily against most vehicles and elites, then better against targets like lesser daemons just by virtue of number of shots.
Autocannons are also half the cost and strictly a solid D2. So that's comparing, for 20 points, 4 S7 AP-1 D2 to 4 S5 AP-3 D1/DD3. That's not even making mention of Autocannons having twice the range. If I had the option for them I'd take Devastators every time.
I still use Grav Cannons on Sternguard Lias bomb but when you reroll all shots you can forgive the price tag. Assuming all the squads are near of course.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not sure its better for the cost. And I don't like the range at all. But it does get a lot of shots. It just needs to be cheaper or go on a better platform.
A Devastator squad under proper rerolls and Doctrine will knock out a Leman Russ on it's own without the Grav-Strat. 3 of them with UM Oath average a Castellan knockout. Tac Squads with GravC and Plasma out damage the same number of points as Primaris against a lot of targets, Including Primaris. They put up great numbers, you just gotta commit to delivering them.
Overcharged Plasma Cannons outperform Autocannons all day every day. Autocannons are. . . Fine. If you want to sit around doing meh damage from the backfield, hah!
"A Devastator squad under proper rerolls and Doctrine will knock out a Leman Russ on it's own without the Grav-Strat. 3 of them with UM Oath average a Castellan knockout. Tac Squads with GravC and Plasma out damage the same number of points as Primaris against a lot of targets, Including Primaris. They put up great numbers, you just gotta commit to delivering them."
Once. They do all this once and then die. That's my concern. You do you, but it seems like you are triple downing on the glass cannon properties of marines.
"Overcharged Plasma Cannons outperform Autocannons all day every day."
Until a -1 shows up. Or -2. I know they are shitcanning -2 though, and if they make plasma only on natural 1 for overheat, I'll probably consider them superior. Marine just can't afford to kill themselves.
I'm also considering AP past -2 to generally be a waste of points.
Insectum7 wrote: Victory requires no explanation. Defeat allows none. :p
It requires plenty if it is to be replicated by others. That's a cop out. Explain how to proceed after the devs are wiped in a turn. I always feel like you are leaving out critical details in your exploits.
Insectum7 wrote: Victory requires no explanation. Defeat allows none. :p
It requires plenty if it is to be replicated by others. That's a cop out. Explain how to proceed after the devs are wiped in a turn. I always feel like you are leaving out critical details in your exploits.
I might, if you didn't have such a long history of being Eeyore and disregarding reasoning because 'BA wah.'
Hit first, hit hard, make a mess of the opponents plan, then shoot, assault, withdraw, repeat until either you've won or lost all your mans. Lots of bodies in the PA swarm. Cheap Transports aren't wasted ramming into things and removing their ability to shoot. Rerolls all day. Stack your Strats, Relics and Doctrine bonusses as hard as you can. Leverage Combat Squads when applicable. If your Devs die, your Devs die, it's fine as long as your grinding the opponent away faster.
Autocannons kill too slow, and there are lots of Autocannon alternatives, Stalkers, Whilwinds, Thunderfires, etc. I want lots of damage as fast as possible. Plasma, Grav and Las deliver on that front. Las is swingy but those 5s and 6s are sweet, and you can spend a reroll Strat on a clutch Damage roll if you need it.
But if the tacs and dev squads take transports, even the cheapest rhinos, they no longer out perform primaris at same points, because the cost of the rhino that is needed for the grav units to function takes them over the point cost. May as well start comparing them to primaris units in impulsors, and then thanks to the +4inv the primaris become super resilient comparing to the devs or tacticals.
the tactic sounds as if it works only if the opponent over commits and the las roll real high on damge, and the opponent doesn't roll DR or inv, or doesn't have stacking minus to hit.
Karol wrote: But if the tacs and dev squads take transports, even the cheapest rhinos, they no longer out perform primaris at same points, because the cost of the rhino that is needed for the grav units to function takes them over the point cost.
Depends on how you pack 'em in the transports, your targets, and how you leverage the positioning.
That is a too big complication, too many ifs and the army stops being good and working. A good army, like the old castellan armies or IH pre nerf or eldar flyers lists played soliter most of the time. That is why they were so good. It didn't matter what the opponent had, unless it was a mirror or some specific match ups.
Any army or tactics, that comes with a list of stuff that have to happen and have to be done, to work is a bad one. I mean it could fall apart by something is simple as bad rolling or being limited by the rule of 3, or not enough target saturation.
a castellan list didn't care what the opponent had. It was taller them most terrain, its two smash captins had a good chance of killing what ever they touched, including a castellan an opponent had, and the castellan had , at worse, a very good chance to hurt most resilient units in the game real bad, and normal stuff just died.
The whole, I attack, then I hurt, then I withdraw, sounds like a history book and not w40k. you can't do those things in one turn. You can't even do thos things if opponent goes first and alfa strikes you, or is flyer build and your short range guns start shoting at -2 or -3 to hit.
I mean, Insectum seems confident in his tactics - And frankly I have somewhere between a 60-80% winrate using similar tactics (rhinos + Tacs) with marked differences (I use salamanders with Las/Meltaguns as opposed to his ultramarines with L/P/G) .
These aren't just baby seals either - I play in tournaments against some top tier players, which does drop my WR down quiet a bit. I can win going second or first, although some match-ups definitely favor one or the other.
These lists thrive at adapting to enemy lists because each individual unit has an inherent level of versatility. Its not that I care if opponents bring specific units, its that I can easily adapt strategy based on what they have.
Lets take Attack/Hurt/Withdraw. A tactic that I have employed in many games - Disembark from the rhino, plug meltas where I can, bolters and grenade else where - Attack - If the meltas are in range to hit good targets, great, else focus on wearing down screens, leaving a few targets for charging- Hurt - Charge and wrap squads so that they can't get shot - Withdraw.
Clear what I can on his turn to disengage and press forward
I think it will make vehicles more competitive, like land speeders etc. Some already have abilities that negate the -1 to hit with heavy weapons if you moved, this simply gives all the others the same.
So, it improves vehicles, leaves infantry in pretty much the same position.
Single shot lascannons aren't bad at all. They could be if their platforms were BS4+ with no re-rolls or worse.
But marines are BS3+ with tons of re-rolls. That single lascannon actually hurts like it had a better rate of fire. Doctrine also gives it AP-4.
I also play with regular SW dudes, can't stand primaris and I'll never gonna buy them. Never disappointed, despite SW aren't as powerful as vanilla marines, not in the slightest.
But I wouldn't make a comparison between regular marines and primaris, as primaris really look more competitive. The point is regular marines are still good enough to do well anyway, even if something else in their codex outperforms them. They could only real struggle against a pure optimized primaris army, but I refuse to play marines vs marines since 5th edition, so not my problem
The new rule that negates the -1 to hit penalty on vehicles is actually pretty big for marines. Land speeders and assault cannon razorbacks come to mind instantly. But I can also move Bjorn at let him it fire with his full BS2+ now.
I love my dark angel tacticals with heavy weapons sitting in cover shooting with native rerrolls of 1's, even with lass cannons. Normally the enemy needs to put effort into killing them not because they are resilient but because I always put them outside were the objetives and action is.
Considering CSM did for a while run Lascannon spam, often on msuCSM, it's honestly not a bad weapon for a MSU squad even when not in reach for rerolls.
Sure the AC is overall better when you don't play gunline and just want to plink away at some Primaris or light vehicles and pts wise but it's not a bad setup for marines to be MSU with a heavy weapon.
Also in regards to the ML, it wasn't bad this edition, just slightly overpriced for the versatility it offered, i can imagine that the ML doesn't really hike but will get blast rules on it's fragments rockets, which would make it quite the rude awakening.
MLs have always overpaid for versatility that never mattered. I field them because they are traditional, and I’ve got a billion of them. (And at one point were free in tac squads). In my literal decades of fielding them and poping missiles downrange, only once have I not regretted using a frag. Bunch of gaunts in the open, tight pack, and the dice were kind. Every other time I see the ideal target (light infantry large group, dense) I’d (like a sucker) give it a shot. And maybe kill a guy. Should have just used a krack missile.
And if all I’m shooting is kracks, why not go with the LC?
(because I’m a traditionalist fluff monkey)
My point in the undercanffinated ramble is that MLs have always been priced like frags were a viable option, and they never have been. Hopefully the blast rule will help make it so we get the flexibility we’ve been paying for. If they do jack the price up, at least it might actually do it’s job and be overpriced. So at least be effective, is not efficient.
But what gun is “best” will depend on the dance of rules and points, like it always does.
Well I tipycally give 4 ML to long fangs instead of lascannons because I'm constantly struggling with points and 20 points for me are a big deal.
I don't bother with the frag profile since 5th edition but against anything but T8 the krack ML deals basically the same damage of a lascannon, and with plasma, other platforms for lascannons (Stormfang Gunship, Bjorn, Razorbacks), power fists/thunder hammers I can deal with T8 anyway.
The blast rule makes ML even better, but at 20ppm they are already pricey and they can't go up in points.
Vilehydra wrote: I mean, Insectum seems confident in his tactics - And frankly I have somewhere between a 60-80% winrate using similar tactics (rhinos + Tacs) with marked differences (I use salamanders with Las/Meltaguns as opposed to his ultramarines with L/P/G) .
These aren't just baby seals either - I play in tournaments against some top tier players, which does drop my WR down quiet a bit. I can win going second or first, although some match-ups definitely favor one or the other.
These lists thrive at adapting to enemy lists because each individual unit has an inherent level of versatility. Its not that I care if opponents bring specific units, its that I can easily adapt strategy based on what they have.
Lets take Attack/Hurt/Withdraw. A tactic that I have employed in many games - Disembark from the rhino, plug meltas where I can, bolters and grenade else where - Attack - If the meltas are in range to hit good targets, great, else focus on wearing down screens, leaving a few targets for charging- Hurt - Charge and wrap squads so that they can't get shot - Withdraw.
Clear what I can on his turn to disengage and press forward
In a well-balanced game, I'd agree more. But meltas are awful as currently implemented. Also wrapping with fly isn't trivial. I don't think it can be reliable upon without it unless you are a horde. I'm pretty confident in my wrapping assessment because that's my entire codex. Also, salamanders at least have a defensive ability. Using oldbois with gear is triple downing on glass cannon status to me.
I just don't see how 1W oldbois with expensive gear can outlast anyone. So expensive, and so fragile.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Single shot lascannons aren't bad at all. They could be if their platforms were BS4+ with no re-rolls or worse.
But marines are BS3+ with tons of re-rolls. That single lascannon actually hurts like it had a better rate of fire. Doctrine also gives it AP-4.
I also play with regular SW dudes, can't stand primaris and I'll never gonna buy them. Never disappointed, despite SW aren't as powerful as vanilla marines, not in the slightest.
But I wouldn't make a comparison between regular marines and primaris, as primaris really look more competitive. The point is regular marines are still good enough to do well anyway, even if something else in their codex outperforms them. They could only real struggle against a pure optimized primaris army, but I refuse to play marines vs marines since 5th edition, so not my problem
The new rule that negates the -1 to hit penalty on vehicles is actually pretty big for marines. Land speeders and assault cannon razorbacks come to mind instantly. But I can also move Bjorn at let him it fire with his full BS2+ now.
No, it really doesn't. Go do the math on a single lascannon. The AP doesn't matter too often for my taste and its price tag. Rerolling 1s you get 0.77*0.77*3.5 (the best we can do)= 2 W. Or 1.4 W vs a 5++ or 2+. That's paying for a captain babysitter, an LT babysitter and the expensive ass lascannon.
and while move-and-fire at -1 with heavies isn't that bad on it's own, it does cause issue with BS4+ and 5+ armies, especially when their vehicles/Monsters are supposed to be mobile fire support. If you get dropped to hitting less than half shots whil moving, you are not mobile fire support(guard, Taj, Admech, Nids and stealer cults, DEldar, CEldar, and Orks to some degree, basically most armies).
Most of those armies aren't affect at all by the penalty though. Orks don't have a single vehicle that suffers that -1 penalty, there's basically just the gunwagon, which doesn't want to move anyway (it'll lose the ability to shoot twice), while drukhari's vehicles never suffer that penalty as "heavy weapons" become "assault weapons" if mounted on vehicles and coven monsters have assault or rapid fire weapons. Guard tanks have long range weapons and couldn't care less about moving, etc...
Guard: Sentinels. that should be all, but no; Russes often want to move, at least mine do.
Orks: Kila cans, and any of the Battlewagon variants, not just the gun wagon can have the old Big gunz, Mek Gunz(if you need to move) Wazzbomb blastjet.
Guard: Sentinels. that should be all, but no; Russes often want to move, at least mine do.
Orks: Kila cans, and any of the Battlewagon variants, not just the gun wagon can have the old Big gunz, Mek Gunz(if you need to move) Wazzbomb blastjet.
Possibly Flash Gitz on a Trukk since "modifiers that apply to the Trukk apply to the unit".
Orks: Kila cans, and any of the Battlewagon variants, not just the gun wagon can have the old Big gunz, Mek Gunz(if you need to move) Wazzbomb blastjet.
Only one heavy weapon for kanz though, and that's the crappiest one. No one take grotzookas since ages. BWs of any kind never take a big gun, even if they actually can, in fact they even usually avoid the assault weapons as their only purpose is to transport units as fast as possible towards the enemy and ram something. They just don't have synergy.
Mek gunz, like you russes, may need to move only if they don't get any visuals on a target, but they have enough range to aim at everything, especially with the new smaller table's size. There's also no need to hide them (if you actually can) since it's impossible to hide the entire army and they're among the toughest models orks have considering their points value: if they soak shots instead of something more valuable, good for the ork player.
The blastajet has already got in its profile a rule that allows it to move and ignore the penalty for firing heavy weapons.
Seriously, the -1 penalty for moving and firing heavy weapons is basically never in play for orks vehicles. Tipycally only flash gitz may suffer it, but they're infantry so they'll keep the penalty anyway.
Martel732 wrote: No, it really doesn't. Go do the math on a single lascannon. The AP doesn't matter too often for my taste and its price tag. Rerolling 1s you get 0.77*0.77*3.5 (the best we can do)= 2 W. Or 1.4 W vs a 5++ or 2+. That's paying for a captain babysitter, an LT babysitter and the expensive ass lascannon.
Oath Relic = full re-rolls against a single target. So .888 x .888 x 3.5 = 2.75. On a Venerable Dreadnought or Signumed Devastator it's .96 x .888 x 3.5 for 2.98. Capatain and Lt. re-rolls for a Venerable is 2.6. Double Lascannon and Missile Launcher in that setup net you 7.38 total against REQ. Full rerolls get you to 8.4, a one shot Dreadnought or Carnifex kill.
Orrr, my favorite, 10 Razorbacks with Twin Lascannon and Hunter Killer get 65 wounds against a Leman Russ Equivalent, haha. For 1160 points plus a charachter to hold the relic. That was my go-to theory-build for knocking out a Castellan for a while. I don't quite have the models for that. . . yet.
Everything does look better at BS 2+, which is partially why I don't think marines should have it on any unit. Seem more appropriate for Eldar and Tau.
Martel732 wrote: Everything does look better at BS 2+, which is partially why I don't think marines should have it on any unit. Seem more appropriate for Eldar and Tau.
2nd Ed Dreadnought had that sweet BS of 6 and a Targeter for a base of 0 to hit.
Martel732 wrote: Everything does look better at BS 2+, which is partially why I don't think marines should have it on any unit. Seem more appropriate for Eldar and Tau.
Yeah let the shooting armies shoot even better, jesus you think before you post sometimes?
Martel732 wrote: Everything does look better at BS 2+, which is partially why I don't think marines should have it on any unit. Seem more appropriate for Eldar and Tau.
2nd Ed Dreadnought had that sweet BS of 6 and a Targeter for a base of 0 to hit.
Doesn't mean I agree with it. Eldar and Tau should have better targeting than marines in my view.
Martel732 wrote: Everything does look better at BS 2+, which is partially why I don't think marines should have it on any unit. Seem more appropriate for Eldar and Tau.
Yeah let the shooting armies shoot even better, jesus you think before you post sometimes?
They should shoot better than marines. And pay for it. Are you thinking before you post?
Martel732 wrote: Everything does look better at BS 2+, which is partially why I don't think marines should have it on any unit. Seem more appropriate for Eldar and Tau.
2nd Ed Dreadnought had that sweet BS of 6 and a Targeter for a base of 0 to hit.
Doesn't mean I agree with it. Eldar and Tau should have better targeting than marines in my view.
Why, after griping about Lascannon inneffectiveness, are you now griping about platforms that make Lascannons more effective?
Martel732 wrote: Everything does look better at BS 2+, which is partially why I don't think marines should have it on any unit. Seem more appropriate for Eldar and Tau.
2nd Ed Dreadnought had that sweet BS of 6 and a Targeter for a base of 0 to hit.
Doesn't mean I agree with it. Eldar and Tau should have better targeting than marines in my view.
Why, after griping about Lascannon inneffectiveness, are you now griping about platforms that make Lascannons more effective?
bsw
Because they don't make the lascannon itself better conceptually. It's pushing the math from the wrong end imo. BS 2+ and reroll armada also just helps the mid str high RoF weapons just as much.
It's a valuable tool against heavy targets at longer ranges. As much as you complain about -3 save mod being without value, it remains the weapon of choice against those pesky Leman Russ Command tanks or the ever growing amount of Repulsor-chassis vehicles out there, being about three times as effective against such targets than the Autocannon, for not 3x more the cost, not accounting for the platform, which makes the Autocannon even less lethal for the points.
I assume 5++ or 4++ on all targets. There's no other way to roll in my view. Because if you don't, and those show up, all your fancy AP goes down the toilet. And you paid out the ass for it because GW. Admittedly, -3 AP is not as readily wasted as -4 and above, but its really a RoF issue for me. And only one damage reroll per turn.
Theoretical simple scenario with Devastators to illustrate my point:
5 Devs, 4 Autocannons, 105 points.
5 Devs, 4 Lascannons, 165 points.
Against T8 3+.
Autocannons 4x.666x.333x.5x2 = 1.77 wounds (2.66 wounds vs. T7)
Lascannons 4x.666x.666x.83 = 5.15 wounds
So 60% more points including the platform, but a 3X return in wounds. You kill these common, high damage output targets waaay faster, even for the cost. Plus, the wounding on 3+ gives the common reroll-1s more benefit, since you reroll half your fails, and succeed the reroll 2/3ds of the time. As a bonus to that once a turn you can reroll a pesky 1 that comes up on your damage if you want. In my book, far, faaar superior to the Autocannon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I assume 5++ or 4++ on all targets. There's no other way to roll in my view. Because if you don't, and those show up, all your fancy AP goes down the toilet. And you paid out the ass for it because GW. Admittedly, -3 AP is not as readily wasted as -4 and above, but its really a RoF issue for me. And only one damage reroll per turn.
A 5++ is easily in-cover anyways. The 4++ hurts a bit, but not enough to disregard all the non-invuln things that I commonly see.
Against the T8 4++, the four Lascannons make 3.1 wounds, which is STILL more effective than the Autocannon for the cost.
T8 is the best possible scenario for the lascannons though. Replace with Drukhari raiders and cry. And I'd rather have 105 pt tied up in 5 wounds than 165. Your opponent gets a turn, too.
4++ more than hurts a bit. It basically neuters all AP based approaches into the ground.
Basically I'm hedging my bets and you are assuming the best possible scenario. imo.
No, the gitz are shooting, not the trukk. That -1 to hit doesn't affect the trukk.
Well, I mean the Gitz didn't move. The Trukk itself doesn't get a penalty for move and shoot with heavies (any longer). So in a gamey sense they don't either? Maybe? I dunno.
No, but chaos can. I don't use devs because I don't like any of their weapons. Not sure I'd use ACdevs, but I'd be more likely to use them than any of the other weapons.
No, but chaos can. I don't use devs because I don't like any of their weapons. Not sure I'd use ACdevs, but I'd be more likely to use them than any of the other weapons.
Hmm ok, but then why not said Havoc's...
Also gun is also only as goo as what it is on. No one is going to take Lascannons on Marines anyways b.c marines die in a second. Maybe in 9th with better cover rules and some LoS blocking.
No, but chaos can. I don't use devs because I don't like any of their weapons. Not sure I'd use ACdevs, but I'd be more likely to use them than any of the other weapons.
Hmm ok, but then why not said Havoc's...
Also gun is also only as goo as what it is on. No one is going to take Lascannons on Marines anyways b.c marines die in a second. Maybe in 9th with better cover rules and some LoS blocking.
Not according to Insectum. That's my second biggest reason. The platform is awful.
Martel732 wrote: T8 is the best possible scenario for the lascannons though. Replace with Drukhari raiders and cry. And I'd rather have 105 pt tied up in 5 wounds than 165. Your opponent gets a turn, too.
4++ more than hurts a bit. It basically neuters all AP based approaches into the ground.
Basically I'm hedging my bets and you are assuming the best possible scenario. imo.
Yeah for DE this is 100% not the case, DEDL's are bad compare to DC (well they are actually equal, and better or worst very slightly against certain things. But b.c a Lance is 1 shot and DC is 3, DC is now a TAC weapon that always works).
No, but chaos can. I don't use devs because I don't like any of their weapons. Not sure I'd use ACdevs, but I'd be more likely to use them than any of the other weapons.
Hmm ok, but then why not said Havoc's...
Also gun is also only as goo as what it is on. No one is going to take Lascannons on Marines anyways b.c marines die in a second. Maybe in 9th with better cover rules and some LoS blocking.
Not according to Insectum. That's my second biggest reason. The platform is awful.
LOL If he is playing with a dev squad with Lscannons, that unit is dead turn 1 vs anything i play no matter what, b.c its a easy kill for 1, and second it gets ride of something that is somewhat threatening. So i'll be happy to play him with him Devs anyday. There is a reason i like SoB Rets with HB, super cheap and still effective, in cover a lot of times i outrange with them doing pop shots and never getting shot at.
Martel732 wrote: T8 is the best possible scenario for the lascannons though. Replace with Drukhari raiders and cry. And I'd rather have 105 pt tied up in 5 wounds than 165. Your opponent gets a turn, too.
4++ more than hurts a bit. It basically neuters all AP based approaches into the ground.
Basically I'm hedging my bets and you are assuming the best possible scenario. imo.
Yeah for DE this is 100% not the case, DEDL's are bad compare to DC (well they are actually equal, and better or worst very slightly against certain things. But b.c a Lance is 1 shot and DC is 3, DC is now a TAC weapon that always works).
That's my point. Marines just don't have anything as good as a dissy cannon.
Automatically Appended Next Post: He's got them in transports.
Martel732 wrote: T8 is the best possible scenario for the lascannons though. Replace with Drukhari raiders and cry. And I'd rather have 105 pt tied up in 5 wounds than 165. Your opponent gets a turn, too.
4++ more than hurts a bit. It basically neuters all AP based approaches into the ground.
Basically I'm hedging my bets and you are assuming the best possible scenario. imo.
Or T8 is common in my meta, and I don't only take Lascannons. Las outperforms the Autocannon against probably 90% of vehicles/monsters I see. A Drukari Raider is a far more special case than T7 and T8. And I just did the math vs 4++, where the Las outperforms the Autocannon.
Martel732 wrote: T8 is the best possible scenario for the lascannons though. Replace with Drukhari raiders and cry. And I'd rather have 105 pt tied up in 5 wounds than 165. Your opponent gets a turn, too.
4++ more than hurts a bit. It basically neuters all AP based approaches into the ground.
Basically I'm hedging my bets and you are assuming the best possible scenario. imo.
Or T8 is common in my meta, and I don't only take Lascannons. Las outperforms the Autocannon against probably 90% of vehicles/monsters I see. A Drukari Raider is a far more special case than T7 and T8. And I just did the math vs 4++, where the Las outperforms the Autocannon.
Does it outperform it enough though? I guess I just don't care about T7 and T8. I care about invulns taking away my AP. I still face a lot of demons/drukhari before the lockdown. I'd say 66% of games where I splurge for AP weapons, it backfires. Now a lot of that is melta, but still.
In my view, marines can't afford to pay for AP they aren't getting. Maybe they can now, but it doesn't seem to work for BA at all.
Well then realize it's a meta-dependent situation and call it a day. I see Nids, Primaris, IG, Chaos, Custodes most commonly. We had a Ynnari soup player but he swapped to Chaos in the last year. But for Raiders the Stalker is ready-made tool for the job, and Las only barely underperforms the Autocannon against the Raider, so it's a hard sell to give them up when so far superior against the other armies I commonly face.
Martel732 wrote: I still feel like I'd rather not have my lascannons on 1W bodies. If I were to use such a weapon.
Then don't. I often don't. Lascannons are available on a huge array of platforms while Grav and Plasma are more limited. Both of those are only readily spammed on 1W models, and both are cheaper than Lascannons. My Lascannons are often on Razorbacks, and sometimes Tac squads that I expect to sit back.
Yeah I don't use tacs or razorbacks. I'm trying to think of a unit I use that can actually take one. It's been a long time since I fielded a lascannon. Sad because I have 6 razorbacks. None have TL lascannon though.
No, the gitz are shooting, not the trukk. That -1 to hit doesn't affect the trukk.
Well, I mean the Gitz didn't move. The Trukk itself doesn't get a penalty for move and shoot with heavies (any longer). So in a gamey sense they don't either? Maybe? I dunno.
But the point is that the trukk doesn't have heavy weapons, the gitz do. If a trukk moved the unit embarked still counts as it has moved as well. The new heavy rule simply says that only infantries get a -1 to hit penalty if the move, not that vehicles can move and count as they were stationary. The trukk never gets the penalty in the first place. Unless there is some specific rule in the 9th rulebook about transports and units embarked that clearly states that units embarked don't count as moved as long as they stay inside, the gitz will get the penalty if their vehicle moves. In 8th if the vehicle moves, the unit cannot disembark and move because it counts like they already moved.
LOL If he is playing with a dev squad with Lscannons, that unit is dead turn 1 vs anything i play no matter what, b.c its a easy kill for 1, and second it gets ride of something that is somewhat threatening. So i'll be happy to play him with him Devs anyday. There is a reason i like SoB Rets with HB, super cheap and still effective, in cover a lot of times i outrange with them doing pop shots and never getting shot at.
True, that's why I embark my long fangs in a razorback (in a vehicle heavy list), so they are protected if I don't go first and they can shoot without penalties via stratagem anyway. Outflank work on them as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Yeah I don't use tacs or razorbacks. I'm trying to think of a unit I use that can actually take one. It's been a long time since I fielded a lascannon. Sad because I have 6 razorbacks. None have TL lascannon though.
I always take all the 3 that I have, joined by the gunship and tipycally by a crusader as well (although it doesn't have lascannons, but it does provide saturation). Mostly equipped with twin ass cannons in 8th, in the last year only twin lascannon though due to meta shift. It's super easy to magnetize their weapons, the only problem is the lack of assault cannons in their kit, but they can be obtained by buying them from bitz sites or looking for spared bitz into termies or dreads kits.
and while move-and-fire at -1 with heavies isn't that bad on it's own, it does cause issue with BS4+ and 5+ armies, especially when their vehicles/Monsters are supposed to be mobile fire support. If you get dropped to hitting less than half shots whil moving, you are not mobile fire support(guard, Taj, Admech, Nids and stealer cults, DEldar, CEldar, and Orks to some degree, basically most armies).
Most of those armies aren't affect at all by the penalty though. Orks don't have a single vehicle that suffers that -1 penalty, there's basically just the gunwagon, which doesn't want to move anyway (it'll lose the ability to shoot twice), while drukhari's vehicles never suffer that penalty as "heavy weapons" become "assault weapons" if mounted on vehicles and coven monsters have assault or rapid fire weapons. Guard tanks have long range weapons and couldn't care less about moving, etc...
Guard: Sentinels. that should be all, but no; Russes often want to move, at least mine do.
Orks: Kila cans, and any of the Battlewagon variants, not just the gun wagon can have the old Big gunz, Mek Gunz(if you need to move) Wazzbomb blastjet.
Let's clean up the fact here a bit:
All battlewagon variants, kill tanks and the big trakk have the mobile fortress rule and ignore penalties for shooting heavy weapons. A gun wagon can still shoot twice when moving at half speed, it doesn't need to stand still.
The Wazbomm Blastajet has Mekbrain-enhanced Weapon-sights which ignores heavy weapon penalties in addition to giving the smasha +1 to hit.
Nauts, stompas and the meka dread have big 'n stompy, which ignores penalties among other things.
The only heavy weapon on kanz, grot tanks and grot mega-tanks is the grotzooka, which is worse than a big shoota right now, and even with the blast rule isn't exactly something you would spend 10 points on.
Mek guns and big guns can now move at full speed and shoot which is... 3"
So the only models to actually benefit from being able to move and shoot freely are the Big Mek on Warbike(legends) with a SAG, both squiggoths and the chinork who comes with two free deff guns (same weapon as lootas).
Outside of those models, only Badrukk, flash gits, lootas and the SAG have heavy weapons, all other ork vehicles and bikes are exclusively armed with assault weapons and pistols.
So while I agree with the original post, orks don't really give a gak about heavy weapons on vehicles. What's way more interesting is whether passengers of transports suffer penalties or not.
Blackie wrote: If a trukk moved the unit embarked still counts as it has moved as well.
Is that a new rule for 9th? I can't find it for 8th. If I'm missing it I'll happily be corrected if you could point me to it.
Its an 8th rule and 100% will be a 9th rule even if they didn't say yet.
Could you point me to the rule? I can't find it. I've checked the battle primer and the open topped rule in my codex
To end this silly, though amusing game:
Open-topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model Fell Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on.
Unless open topped get errata'ed with the release of 9th, heavy weapons can shoot from inside transports without penalty.
Blackie wrote: If a trukk moved the unit embarked still counts as it has moved as well.
Is that a new rule for 9th? I can't find it for 8th. If I'm missing it I'll happily be corrected if you could point me to it.
Its an 8th rule and 100% will be a 9th rule even if they didn't say yet.
Could you point me to the rule? I can't find it. I've checked the battle primer and the open topped rule in my codex
To end this silly, though amusing game:
Open-topped: Models embarked on this model can attack in their Shooting phase. Measure the range and draw line of sight from any point on this model. When they do so, any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers; for example, the passengers cannot shoot if this model Fell Back in the same turn, cannot shoot (except with Pistols) if this model is within 1" of an enemy unit, and so on.
Unless open topped get errata'ed with the release of 9th, heavy weapons can shoot from inside transports without penalty.
It seems you missed what wrote, here it is again
Q: If a transport moves, do any models embarked inside it count as also having moved? A: Yes.
But the question is: is that modifier applied to the trukk? The trukk doesn't have heavy weapons, the unit embarked do.
For how I read the new heavy rule and the 8th edition Open topped rule I don't have the feeling that units embarked should fire heavy weapons without penalty. Beacuse the restriction/modifier never applies to the trukk in the first place.
These rules don't say that the transport can attack in its shooting phase with the weapons of the units embarked, but only that units embarked can shoot out of it and in doing so they also get any restriction/modifer that the vehicle gets. It isn't the trukk that is firing heavy weapons.
Units that fire heavy weapons from the BW had their penalty as well in 8th, despite the rule of ignoring the penalty that the wagon has, since it only affects the vehicle, not the models embarked.
Maybe it's written in a weird way but to me it's pretty clear that GW intended to say that penalties like a -1 to hit that a target can have are also applied to the crew embarked, or the +1 to hit that Freeboterz can trigger. In both cases the trukk has the modifier, and it transfers it to the models embarked.
I thought they had already changed it from 7th Edition. But then again the -1 was usually not bad enough to make you stand still if you had to reach something important.
