Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is my theory hammer guard

2x 3x Lascannon Heavy Weapon Teams
1x 3x Heavy Bolter Heavy Weapon Teams

then

3x 1x Autocannon 1x GL Infantry
2x 1x Missile Launcher 1x Plasma Infantry

Admitedly Plasma is probably preferred over GL. The only and best reason for not including Lascannons in all squads is simply because the heavy weapon platoons come with all weapon options, so you may as well use the miniatures.

If you want to talk statistics, you save 10 points for each AC or ML so five times that gives you one Sentinel armed with Mulilaser, Autocannon or lascannon with the Scout rule. Pretty good.

Again, talking statistics in a space marine devastator squad 2 lascannons at 70 points are about the same as 3 to 4 missile launchers for the same price. They're that good.

@tacobake:  I don't think that would actually work.  On turn one you would lose both squads of lascannons.  And then you would have none of IG's most crucial weapon left.  Also grenade launchers do not compliment the IG infantry sqaud at all, since you are paying extra points to make it an assault weapon, and yet the IG players 24" range attack is a defensive attack.  Beyond that heavy bolters are worthless when autocannons are available, and missile launchers should always be replaced by autocannons as autocannons are better at doing everything then they are (except taking out MEQ in the open, which lets face it, is not  the IG squads primary roll)

I support using grenade launchers as back ups for autocannon, as with krak grenades (the only type used) you get firepower complimentary to the autocannon. However this is just for a gimic squad or two, most platoon squads should have lascannon. I have two lascannon squads one autocannon/grenade launcher squad and a melta/flamer command for my standard platoon loadouts.
I vary this by swapping in a heavy bolter, a flamer and some plasma guns as a change to freshen play.

"A key principle that applies not only to IG, but to all armies, is that every squad of the same durability, should be armed equally. "

I disagree with this. In a nutshell : to overspercialise is to breed in weakness. It also makes the game sterile and voids much of the tactical play. It voids tactical play because part of the true essense of wargaming is to have units of uneven value and to make best use of them. Secondly traditional wargamers tend to prefer terrain heavy tables, this is where your equal durability breaks down. Place the more important squads in deeper cover, leaving the less imoportant squads in lesser cover or out of cover. That is why this is incorrect:

"mathematicaly your are paying 180 pts (95 + 85) to ensure that an 85 pt squad can shoot. This means you are losing 10 pts in this equation as your list would have equal ability with two 85 pt squads."

Sure it would be the case with mathhammer on a terrainless table, but any decent game will offer some places to hide, but not enough or the same for everyone (unless you are playing a trench warfare game). Two lascannon squads, one in cover one without - shoot the lascannon squad, simple as. One autocannopn squad in the open and a lascannon squad in cover - tactical dilemma on both sides. This is where smart choices comes in, and %%% loses its deathgrip on playability.

Even without cover taken into consideration there is good cause to mix your units againnst some aremies, if facing assault it may pay to consider whether you have lascannon squads on the front line (e.g. vs horde nids) or at the rear (e.g. vs zilla).

Given the two dimensional nature of a lot of the game, the poverty of cover excepting a cliche two woods and a hill in many game venues, and the prevelance of cheese lists that can really only be taken on with massed lascannon; you are not wholy wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with a lascannon only attitude for guard, especially at tournament. However you become part of the problem with 40K and not part of the solution, but that cannot be blamed on you but on the game designers.

In other words, he's mostly right, but you wish it weren't so? Join the club.

I don't feel as though I need to defend my position, my army building strategy above is both mathimatically the best choice, and has proven itself in every game I have played.  The Lascannon Plasma Gun squad provides the best flexibility on the battlefeild, and as I'm sure you know, flexibility is the key to strategy.  What I do wan't to adress though is your attitude toward "optimized lists".

1: Why do you presume that if a player is useing an optimized list, he becomes oblivious to strategems?  My guess is that you feel this way because a non optimized list can only win through supperior strategy (especially guard) while a optimized list does not rely so heavilly on tactics.  If that is how you feel you should realize that when playing against another optimized list the same ammount of tactics are required for victory. 

2: Why do you look down on optimized lists as though they ruin the game of 40k?  One of the great qualities of 40k is that you get to build your own army, and like everything there is some good, and some bad.  What usualy sepperates different lists are not their actual powers, but the ease in which they can be optimized (I realize some lists actually do suck and no ammount of optimization will help make them teir 1).  For instance Nidzilla is so powerfull in my oppinion because it is extreamly simple to understand the optimized build.  You can only take 114 points for an elite carnifex so the best choice becomes quickly obvious (especially to yakface ), ect ect. for the rest of the nid list.  I see optimization of a list through mathimatics, and tactical understanding to be a big skill in playing 40k, and what you see as a list which wins more easily by "abusing the system", is in my oppinon just another aspect in the game.  Whoever is best at creating a list, deserves the advantage it entails.  To disagree, would be like saying that durring a game, if a player used really effective strategies he was playing abusively

Posted By epidemicHEART on 07/31/2007 5:28 PM

.  To disagree, would be like saying that durring a game, if a player used really effective strategies he was playing abusively

Some people say that, saying the effective strategies are 'exploiting loopholes'.