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.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:As stated above, a lot of your desicion-making will rely upon what other heavy-hitters populate your army list, and you should equip your PIS to fll in the gaps. This is fine. If you need lascannons, throw lascannons onto your PIS. I'm not arguing against this.

I am simply arguing in favour of the combination, YMMV dependant upon your gaming group, but a lot of people here play, or are interested in playing, tournaments and I like to offer advice that best suits an all-comers list.

L. Wrex

Indeed alot of your upgrades for your PIS is meant to fill in the gaps you're lacking for your list or in the case of an all infantry list to fill in everything. I like that you're arguing in favour of the combination as that could benefit someone else that's reading this post on how to layout their PIS if they have a gaming group like yours Lycaeus Wrex but i'm arguing against it because that layout doesn't fit well with my gaming group, but hey thats the point of this thread right?

Now for Aelyn and Ailaros, i'm just going to let them duke it out as this is entertaining lol. I agree with Ailaros while other agree with Aelyn but again it all about the gaming group you have. (This is why i'm agruing with you L. Wrex as we won't get drawn into a long debate )

minigun762 wrote:It seems that people are really split over whether or not Infantry squads should be viewed primarily as anti-infantry units using their Lasguns or as SW and HW spammers.

Yes they are, personally I view PIS should be primarily used as anti-infantry but hey to each his own!


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

Now for everyone else (as I want to get off the Autocannon yay or nay debate right now) lets talk more about veterans, PLEASE?!

1.) What is everyone's thought on a pure or heavy veteran army? Has anyone tried this and has wisdom into what worked and didn't worked for them?

2.) Pro's and Con's of each doctrine and the role they place.

3.)The role you play your PIS/Veterans as i've notice two layouts for PIS/Veterans 1.) for grab & hold on objectives and 2.) for just all out killing.


I'll try to begin this new discussion.

For a pure/heavy veteran army I think this can be very competitive but would be hard to master. I for one prefer footslogging as I know most of the list i'll be going against will have tons of anti-tank fire power so to reduce the effectiness of those weapon, bring more bodies! The one layout that has worked wonderfully for my veterans was a vet squad w/carapace, 2 plasma, and a lascannon. Time and time again i've had other players look at my list and laugh but by the end of the game they tell me that they'll never think of the guard the same way again Now i'm debating of either removing the carapace and save nearly 100 points to spend somewhere else or to just leave them. I'm thinking about equiping my vets with foward sentry instead to get a 3+ cover save as us IG, we can find cover where ever you go!

Anyone tired foward sentry against MEQ lists?

My gaming group is taking a break this Saturday for Building/Painting week so i'll post a list soon after getting some more feedback from you guys.

ishanmaster wrote:
1.) What is everyone's thought on a pure or heavy veteran army? Has anyone tried this and has wisdom into what worked and didn't worked for them?

So, I've seen veteran armies, but not footslogging ones. Veterans are much more expensive for being just as slow and fragile as a regular PIS. Generally when people vet spam, they are running a mechanized list or air cav.

ishanmaster wrote:
2.) Pro's and Con's of each doctrine and the role they place.

Doctrines are sort of like orders: they take a unit and make it a little better at something. Of course, doctrines are much better than orders, but that's why you have to pay so much for them.

As such, the pros are defined by the doctrine. If you have a need in your army that a doctrine can fill, the doctrine can fill it. The con, of course, is that it makes an already fragile, expensive unit even more expensive.

minigun762 wrote:It seems that people are really split over whether or not Infantry squads should be viewed primarily as anti-infantry units using their Lasguns or as SW and HW spammers.

They can be both, but not if you take the wrong weapons.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:You're not given the luxury of seeing your opponent's list pre-game, so in reality you're making the best choice with the tools that you have got. If you start preparing pre-game to take on a specific opponent then you're tailoring your list.

I'm not talking about list tailoring. If your opponent has transports, then, in order to take them down, you're going to have to spend way more points on autocannons then they are spending on transports. If your particular opponent is space marines, you need to spend over 200 points on autocannons for every 50 points he spends on rhinos.

Autocannons are terribly points inefficient not compared to other crappy options in the PIS, but compared to whatever your opponent is bringing.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: having a weapon that can target and engage a multitude of threats that your opponent can POTENTIALLY bring is far, far better than putting all your eggs into one basket, crossing your fingers, closing your eyes and hoping for the best.

Firstly, what's the point of POTENTIALLY engaging in a variety of units if you're not EFFECTIVE against any of the units you're engaging? I can shoot a lasgun at any target in the game, but it's not effective against very many of them. Why advocate for weapons that aren't effective?

As for the eggs-in-basket, this is just nonsense. So you put something that's only good against light infantry in your PIS. What about the WHOLE REST OF YOUR ARMY? You have lots and lots of eggs and lots and lots of baskets. Making a PIS actually useful against something does not change this.

Furthermore, anyone who is closing your eyes, crossing their fingers, and hoping for the best is a terrible player - something which autocannons can't help with. In the real game you can move units to respond to threats as they appear on the table. Closing eyes and crossing fingers assumes that you're never moving any of your units, in which case you would deserve to loose, regardless of the weapons you're taking.

Aelyn wrote:Autocannon PIS squads get a better points-to-kill ratio than the equivalent PIS without an Autocannon against anything less than Space Marines

ANYTHING? Do you want me to run the numbers against light infantry assuming that the PIS is armed with a flamer? Do you want me to run the numbers against AV14 assuming that the PIS has a meltagun or a lascannon? There are lots of weapons that have a better points-to-kill ratio than the autocannons.

Unless what you're comparing is a PIS with an autocannon compared to a PIS with nothing, the latter for which I don't think anyone here is arguing.

Aelyn wrote:Autocannons are perfectly respectable against most vehicles' side armour

If by "perfectly reasonable" you mean "ineffective when you take single autocannons and terribly points ineffecient when you take a lot" then yes, I'd agree that they're perfectly reasonable.

Plus, how often do you really expect PISs to shoot at side armor with out cover anyways? That sort of implies that your opponent can't figure out not to move in such a way that it can't present its front armor to your heavy weapons.

Aelyn wrote:It assumes that the cover is not so ubiquitous that there aren't any sort of firing lanes. Furthermore, it assumes that the terrain is set up in such a way that, once you have set up these firing lanes, the opponent will have to divert his forces to avoid his transports being easy targets (which still accomplishes the aim of pinning them down, albeit in a less effective fashion) and it is done specifically to ensure that all the autocannons are not forced to fire upon one target, but are instead able to move from one target to the next as they are disabled, whether this is by earlier autocannons or by your other anti-tank.

Sure, but even in this carefully cherry-picked perfect set of circumstances, autocannons are still either ineffective or points-ineffective.

Aelyn wrote:Also, you're not just taking down one transport - not unless you're talking about a 1500 pt army (for example) which has four Autocannons in PIS and no other anti-armour whatsoever.

This is actualy my point. Your opponents are bringing lots of transports, and you can't take enough autocannons to stop them. Meanwhile you have the rest of your army which is much better able to handle a transport rush, thus allowing your PISs to take effective weapons.

Aelyn wrote:And you should be very much prepared to deal with what comes out of transports

Except that the math shows that autocannons squads are NOT prepared to deal with what comes out of transports as the autocannon is ineffective against everything that can pop out of a transport.

Meanwhile, you have other options, not only in the rest of your army, but in the PIS itself that can actually handle passengers, unlike the autocannon.

Aelyn wrote:Basically, I'm assuming your PIS are part of an army, not sitting there by themselves crapping their pants over three Rhinos.

As am I. The difference is that I'm using this to advocate for weapons that are effective against the targets that they engage, and against weapons which are ineffective against targets that they engage.

Aelyn wrote:OK, you're now just repeating arguments I've already refuted. It does NOT cost hundreds of points to bring down one transport. It costs a shade more than the transport itself.

But you're just talking about UPGRADES. In the real world of list building, you can't just buy upgrades - you have to buy the upgrade carriers as well. I concede that in a world where you don't need to buy the PIS, but can just buy the upgrades, then it's points effective. You haven't refuted the fact that wholistically, autocannons are very expensive for what they do.

Aelyn wrote:Unless you are saying that the rest of the PIS will be literally useless once the transport has delivered its payload?

If all they're armed with is an autocannon, then yeah. If you give them good weapons, though, they can be useful.

My point, though, is why spend points to take down transports if they can't take down transports before they offload their cargo?

Aelyn wrote:and the entire reason you spread the autocannons out is to make it that much harder for the opponent to protect his light vehicles whilst still making any use out of them whatsoever.

What do you gain by protecting your autocannons if the autocannons themselves are ineffective?

Likewise, what is the point of "making use" of the squads in turns 1 and 2, if they're ineffective all 6 turns? Why not take weapons that are completely ineffective turns 1 and 2, but are then actually effective on turns 4-6?

Aelyn wrote: it means that you don't have to move

What do you gain with the flexibility of not having to move if you're not effective against what you're shooting at?

Aelyn wrote:As I pointed out earlier, against AV 10 or 11, the Autocannon is the heavy weapon most likely to earn a killpoint.

A patent falsehood. There are over 15 weapons in the guard codex that are more effective against AV10 than a PIS autocannon. Many of them are less points-efficient, sure, but they're still more effective. Plus, regardless of relative statistics, just look at the numbers themselves. A PIS autocannon is unlikely to kill a piece of AV10, even assuming that it gets to shoot at it for the entire game.

Aelyn wrote:my point is that mobility should be tempered with functionality

I agree that functionality is the prime purpose of taking any squad, including PISs. Unfortunately, autocannons assure that they're not going to be all that functional in shooting, and heavy weapons reduced their functionality in moving (and when they are moving, it only further decreases their functionality in shooting). Autocannon squads are less functional than other options.

Furthermore, there is a false dichotomy between mobility and functionality, as if you can have too much of one or the other, or that it's a zero-sum game where you can only have so much of one at the expense of the other. I believe that mobility should enhance functionality, not temper it. Of course, in order for this to be true, you have to ditch things like autocannons.

I guess I don't see what the benefit is of pitting movement and functionality against each other just so you can take an ineffective weapon.

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:autocannons are perfectly respectable against most vehicles' side armour

If by "perfectly reasonable" you mean "ineffective when you take single autocannons and terribly points ineffecient when you take a lot" then yes, I'd agree that they're perfectly reasonable.

Good thing I actually said perfectly respectable then :p

And once again, you keep talking about how they're terribly points inefficient. Tell me - what more points-efficient weapon would you take on your PIS? Or would you rather have your PIS run back and forth like headless chickens than actually do something useful?

Ailaros wrote:Plus, how often do you really expect PISs to shoot at side armor with out cover anyways? That sort of implies that your opponent can't figure out not to move in such a way that it can't present its front armor to your heavy weapons.

Exactly. That's why you've spread the autocannons out - so that the only way your opponent can move to prevent this from happening is by taking a more circuitous route, thereby ensuring the autocannons - or rather, the threat of them - have done their job of slowing the opponent down.

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:It assumes that the cover is not so ubiquitous that there aren't any sort of firing lanes. Furthermore, it assumes that the terrain is set up in such a way that, once you have set up these firing lanes, the opponent will have to divert his forces to avoid his transports being easy targets (which still accomplishes the aim of pinning them down, albeit in a less effective fashion) and it is done specifically to ensure that all the autocannons are not forced to fire upon one target, but are instead able to move from one target to the next as they are disabled, whether this is by earlier autocannons or by your other anti-tank.

Sure, but even in this carefully cherry-picked perfect set of circumstances, autocannons are still either ineffective or points-ineffective.

Interesting how you describe this as a "carefully cherry-picked set of circumstances" when every single table I have seen, bar Cityfight tables, has had terrain set up in a manner suitable for this tactic.

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:Also, you're not just taking down one transport - not unless you're talking about a 1500 pt army (for example) which has four autocannons in PIS and no other anti-armour whatsoever.

This is actualy my point. Your opponents are bringing lots of transports, and you can't take enough autocannons to stop them. Meanwhile you have the rest of your army which is much better able to handle a transport rush, thus allowing your PISs to take effective weapons.

So taking a little extra redundancy to pin the transports down while your more specialised anti-tank - which you do have a limited amount of, remember - deals with the problem on a more permanent basis is a bad thing now?

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:And you should be very much prepared to deal with what comes out of transports

Except that the math shows that autocannons squads are NOT prepared to deal with what comes out of transports as the autocannon is ineffective against everything that can pop out of a transport.

Meanwhile, you have other options, not only in the rest of your army, but in the PIS itself that can actually handle passengers, unlike the autocannon.

You do realise that you're still perfectly allowed to take a Flamer in the same PIS as the autocannon? Meaning the squad is realistically capable of both popping a transport in the early turns and dealing with the contents in later turns?

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:Basically, I'm assuming your PIS are part of an army, not sitting there by themselves crapping their pants over three Rhinos.

As am I. The difference is that I'm using this to advocate for weapons that are effective against the targets that they engage, and against weapons which are ineffective against targets that they engage.

And autocannons are effective against transports.

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:OK, you're now just repeating arguments I've already refuted. It does NOT cost hundreds of points to bring down one transport. It costs a shade more than the transport itself.

But you're just talking about UPGRADES. In the real world of list building, you can't just buy upgrades - you have to buy the upgrade carriers as well. I concede that in a world where you don't need to buy the PIS, but can just buy the upgrades, then it's points effective. You haven't refuted the fact that wholistically, autocannons are very expensive for what they do.

Except that there are three options for what you can take on a PIS:

a) An anti-armour heavy weapon. Against most transports, the numers show autocannons to be the most points-efficient of these.
b) An anti-infantry heavy weapon (ie Heavy Bolters). I think we both agree that this is a poor choice - Special Weapons and good old-fashioned pie plates are the general anti-infantry weapons. Even if you consider this a good choice, taking autocannons instead of heavy bolters sacrifices a very small of anti-troop lethality for the flexibility to be able to deal with transports.
c) No heavy weapon at all, in which case the only cost of taking the autocannon is the upgrade cost, since you've already bought the rest of the unit for another purpose.

Your point about it costing the entire PIS is only valid if you're assuming the only reason to take the PIS is for the autocannon.

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:Unless you are saying that the rest of the PIS will be literally useless once the transport has delivered its payload?

If all they're armed with is an autocannon, then yeah. If you give them good weapons, though, they can be useful.

... Do you think I am arguing in favour of a PIS with no special weapon here? I'm arguing that taking an autocannon is a better choice than not taking a heavy weapon, and is a better choice, in general, than the other heavy weapon options.

Ailaros wrote:My point, though, is why spend points to take down transports if they can't take down transports before they offload their cargo?

Except they can take down transports. You seem to be labouring under the impression that autocannons are not capable of taking down transports, when the numbers show that they can. They aren't perfect, but they're still very efficient.

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:and the entire reason you spread the autocannons out is to make it that much harder for the opponent to protect his light vehicles whilst still making any use out of them whatsoever.

What do you gain by protecting your autocannons if the autocannons themselves are ineffective?

I did not talk about protecting my autocannons. I talked about the opponent having to protect his vehicles from the autocannons by ensuring there are no good shots available, and how spreading them out makes it a lot harder for the opponent to do this.

Ailaros wrote:Likewise, what is the point of "making use" of the squads in turns 1 and 2, if they're ineffective all 6 turns? Why not take weapons that are completely ineffective turns 1 and 2, but are then actually effective on turns 4-6?

Feel free to take weapons that make you effective turns 4-6. Taking the one does not preclude you taking the other.

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote: it means that you don't have to move

What do you gain with the flexibility of not having to move if you're not effective against what you're shooting at?

That would be a good point if it weren't for the fact that autocannons are effective against most transports.

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:As I pointed out earlier, against AV 10 or 11, the autocannon is the heavy weapon most likely to earn a killpoint.

A patent falsehood. There are over 15 weapons in the guard codex that are more effective against AV10 than a PIS autocannon. Many of them are less points-efficient, sure, but they're still more effective. Plus, regardless of relative statistics, just look at the numbers themselves. A PIS autocannon is unlikely to kill a piece of AV10, even assuming that it gets to shoot at it for the entire game.

Sorry, fair point. Let me rephrase - of the available options on a PIS, against AV 10 or 11, the autocannon is the weapon most likely to earn a killpoint. And you're right, a single 10 point autocannon is unlikely to kill a 40ish point piece of AV10. What precisely is your point there?

Ailaros wrote:

Aelyn wrote:my point is that mobility should be tempered with functionality

I agree that functionality is the prime purpose of taking any squad, including PISs. Unfortunately, autocannons assure that they're not going to be all that functional in shooting, and heavy weapons reduced their functionality in moving (and when they are moving, it only further decreases their functionality in shooting). autocannon squads are less functional than other options.

Again, you can still move with heavy weapons teams in your squads. You're right in saying that when they do move, it decreases the unit's shooting by all of two lasguns. Woo. However, that sacrifice allows the unit to contribute in a third of the battle in which they would otherwise be useless.

Ailaros wrote:Furthermore, there is a false dichotomy between mobility and functionality, as if you can have too much of one or the other, or that it's a zero-sum game where you can only have so much of one at the expense of the other. I believe that mobility should enhance functionality, not temper it. Of course, in order for this to be true, you have to ditch things like autocannons.

I guess I don't see what the benefit is of pitting movement and functionality against each other just so you can take an ineffective weapon.

You're right it's a false dichotomy - one I actually didn't claim. Taking an autocannon team doesn't actually reduce mobility, except in the corner case where there's a gap of less than 60mm between two pieces of difficult terrain.

Mobility is a good thing. So is firepower, and so is flexibility. Taking the autocannon enhances both firepower and flexibility without damaging mobility.

STOP IT!


STOP IT BEFORE I BURY YOU ALIVE IN A BOX!!!

NO MORE TALKING ABOUT THE STUPID AUTOCANNON AFTER THIS POST, SEE I'M DRAWING A LINE RIGHT NOW

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ok so lets discuss about what I posted earlier:

ishanmaster wrote:1.) What is everyone's thought on a pure or heavy veteran army? Has anyone tried this and has wisdom into what worked and didn't worked for them?

2.) Pro's and Con's of each doctrine and the role they place.

3.)The role you play your PIS/Veterans as i've notice two layouts for PIS/Veterans 1.) for grab & hold on objectives and 2.) for just all out killing.


I'll try to begin this new discussion.

For a pure/heavy veteran army I think this can be very competitive but would be hard to master. I for one prefer footslogging as I know most of the list i'll be going against will have tons of anti-tank fire power so to reduce the effectiness of those weapon, bring more bodies! The one layout that has worked wonderfully for my veterans was a vet squad w/carapace, 2 plasma, and a lascannon. Time and time again i've had other players look at my list and laugh but by the end of the game they tell me that they'll never think of the guard the same way again Now i'm debating of either removing the carapace and save nearly 100 points to spend somewhere else or to just leave them. I'm thinking about equiping my vets with foward sentry instead to get a 3+ cover save as us IG, we can find cover where ever you go!

Anyone tired foward sentry against MEQ lists?

ishanmaster wrote:Ok so lets discuss about what I posted earlier

Right, to which I replied:

Ailaros wrote:

ishanmaster wrote:
1.) What is everyone's thought on a pure or heavy veteran army? Has anyone tried this and has wisdom into what worked and didn't worked for them?

So, I've seen veteran armies, but not footslogging ones. Veterans are much more expensive for being just as slow and fragile as a regular PIS. Generally when people vet spam, they are running a mechanized list or air cav.

ishanmaster wrote:
2.) Pro's and Con's of each doctrine and the role they place.

Doctrines are sort of like orders: they take a unit and make it a little better at something. Of course, doctrines are much better than orders, but that's why you have to pay so much for them.

As such, the pros are defined by the doctrine. If you have a need in your army that a doctrine can fill, the doctrine can fill it. The con, of course, is that it makes an already fragile, expensive unit even more expensive.

As for the debate with Aelyn, it really just boils down to two questions.

1.) An autocannon needs to shoot at a chimera with easily-accessable cover (it even brings its own) for 20 turns before it can stop (not even necessarily destroy) a chimera. It needs to shoot at it for 11 to stop a rhino. Why do you choose to believe that this qualifies as "effective"?

I choose to define that as ineffective, because it doesn't come close to stopping transports before they unload their cargo. The only way for autocannons to achieve this goal is to take a lot which very much exacerbates the following problem of cost:

2.) Why is the autocannon worth its cost? We're not just talking about a piddle 5 points and the marginal cost of wasting a PIS heavy weapon slot. We're talking about 5 points that could be spent on flamers or meltabombs. A couple gets you the cost of a meltagun. You're wasting points that could have been spent elsewhere on weapons which are actually effective. This is just an individual-unit basis as well - the more you take, the more it costs, and the more you can't take other, much more effective weapons. And it's not just cost in points. It is also a cost in movement while the PIS shoots its heavy weapon (and a points cost when the autocannon is silent because the squad moved).

Why do you choose to spend ANY points on ineffective weapons that hurt the squad's ability to move, when you could spend those points on something that was actually effective and doesn't alternate between wasting movement and shooting?

Ailaros, the enormous amount of text, game theory waffling and specious analogies is truly impressive. But you're basing everything on faulty math, which you always seem to avoid addressing.

Ailaros wrote:A PIS autocannon is unlikely to kill a piece of AV10, even assuming that it gets to shoot at it for the entire game.

Assume 6 turns/game. 6 hits. 3 penetrating hits. 1 wrecked result. So, yeah, you either don't know any math, or are being very hyperbolic/disengenuous.

This reliability coupled with the fact (which you've been told multiple times, and have never really replied to) that autocannons can be taken in mandatory troop slots, in competition only with less effective weapons, means autocannons are a damn good choice for infantry.

It doesn't matter that autocannons are worse than hydras, medusas or manticores. Yes, those things are great. They're also limited in number by the FOC. Autocannons are better than lascannons or missile launchers for their points. Saying that they're bad weapons is ignorant of the math - they're perfectly reliable, the only weapons significantly better against transports are meltaguns (short ranged, not the same slot) and heavy support-type guns (expensive, limited numbers, again not the same slot).

Autocannons are good, deal with it.

With regards the pure Veteran list. It IS an effective build. However, the common consensus is to mount them up in Chimeras and take advantage of the three special weapon slots you are allowed.

I combine both in my army; I use my PIS to hold objectives or to take ground dependant upon far too many variables to list here, and I use my Vets to identfy the nastiest vehicle/MC my opponent is fielding and charge them straight at it - whilst being supported by the rest of my armour.

I don't tend to make much use of the Doctrines rules myself, as I feel it makes an already fragile & expensive unit even more expensive, and not really any more survivable for the points cost. There could, however, in an all-Vet list, be a caveat that a certain Doctrine does excel in; not running an all-Vet list myself, I wouldn't know of any

L. Wrex

Ailaros wrote:

ishanmaster wrote:
1.) What is everyone's thought on a pure or heavy veteran army? Has anyone tried this and has wisdom into what worked and didn't worked for them?

So, I've seen veteran armies, but not footslogging ones. Veterans are much more expensive for being just as slow and fragile as a regular PIS. Generally when people vet spam, they are running a mechanized list or air cav.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:With regards the pure Veteran list. It IS an effective build. However, the common consensus is to mount them up in Chimeras and take advantage of the three special weapon slots you are allowed.

I'm trying to stay away from mechanized as my last army SoB was a full mech army and every IG player that I know in Minnesota runs a Mech list. I want to try something different and challenging hence footslogging veterans.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:I combine both in my army; I use my PIS to hold objectives or to take ground dependant upon far too many variables to list here, and I use my Vets to identfy the nastiest vehicle/MC my opponent is fielding and charge them straight at it - whilst being supported by the rest of my armour.

Thats what I was thinking for my army. Have my vets go hunting while my PIS just rush towards the objectives and camp


So I've been attempting to right up my list but its hard to do while at work with my codex but so far my general layout for my 1500pts list would be having 4 grenadier vets with special weapons (1 with meltas in a valk), CCS with standard, carapace, and SW's, then lots of Leman russes with a chimera.

Now for each grenadier squad i'm thinking of equiping all of them with a flamer and giving the sergeant either a PW or PF as the primary army i'll be going against will be BA and CC heavy CSM, is it worth taking? (now i'll still have two SW slots open for each squad)

Also I've been hearing alot of bad things with Al'Rahem, is here really that bad of a SC for a platoon?

For static objective camping PIS, how effective is the Sniper Rifle to pair up with Autocannons or Lascannons?

It has a longer range then either the Plasma gun or Grenade Launcher and its still able to threaten AV12 and MCs thanks to Rending which are the normal targets for these kinds of heavy weapons.

minigun762 wrote:For static objective camping PIS, how effective is the Sniper Rifle to pair up with Autocannons or Lascannons?

It has a longer range then either the Plasma gun or Grenade Launcher and its still able to threaten AV12 and MCs thanks to Rending which are the normal targets for these kinds of heavy weapons.

The sniper rifle doesn't even come close at being on the same level as the autocannon or lascannon. The autocannon is more for dealing with AV10 & AV11 vehicles while the lascannon is for dealing with AV12,13,&14.

The sniper rifle only has 12" more then the PG and GL which really isn't much. The sniper rifle got nurfed because of 5th ed. Now you hit on what your BS is (no more hitting on 2+) so with your average guardsmen you'll be hitting on 4's, wounding on 4's with a weapon that doesn't negate armor saves. Yes its cheap but not flexible or effective as a PG or GL. Plus you need to roll 6's for rending and only able to take one per squad you'll be lucky to even roll a rending in a standard 6 turn game.

If you are fighting MC's, however, take the sniper rifle komrade, and kill those MonC (insert word that starts with b and ends with ds here.)

ishanmaster wrote:
The sniper rifle doesn't even come close at being on the same level as the autocannon or lascannon. The autocannon is more for dealing with AV10 & AV11 vehicles while the lascannon is for dealing with AV12,13,&14.

The sniper rifle only has 12" more then the PG and GL which really isn't much. The sniper rifle got nurfed because of 5th ed. Now you hit on what your BS is (no more hitting on 2+) so with your average guardsmen you'll be hitting on 4's, wounding on 4's with a weapon that doesn't negate armor saves. Yes its cheap but not flexible or effective as a PG or GL. Plus you need to roll 6's for rending and only able to take one per squad you'll be lucky to even roll a rending in a standard 6 turn game.

I wasn't saying that the SR was equal to the autocannon/lascannon, just that on paper it seems a better match then the shorter range GL or much more expensive PG.

It did heavily get nerfed, I'll agree. Maybe I'm overestimating the importance of the 12" extra range.

minigun762 wrote:I wasn't saying that the SR was equal to the autocannon/lascannon, just that on paper it seems a better match then the shorter range GL or much more expensive PG.

It did heavily get nerfed, I'll agree. Maybe I'm overestimating the importance of the 12" extra range.

Having a 36" range SW is awesome but the sniper rifle fails in that its not reliable nor effect in a PIS. Now if you had a veteran squad with a AC or ML then I could see taking the sniper rifle has you have a better chance of hitting plus you can take up to 3 of them in one squad. I know several IG players that one vet squad with AC+3 snipers in their army for hunting MC's.


Ok so after talking with some other people about Al'Rahem I'm not even going to touch this guy till around the 2000pts game as Al'Rahem platoon is just a massive point sink (I think it was a minium of 300pts to have a Al'Rahem platoon to be semi-effective).

Now for my 1500pts list I'm going to include 4 veteran squads as core units with the following layout:
*Veteran squad w/flamer, 2 meltaguns, PF, and grenadier - 140pts (they'll be riding in a valk)
*X3 Veteran squads w/flamer, 2 plasmaguns, and grenadier - 135pts apiece

So i'm going to give carapace another shot as this should increase the survivability of my units. Also I've equipped them all with flamers so when an enemy unit gets too close I'll be able to lower the enemy model count to reduce the charge damage my unit will suffer when I get into CC.
___________________________________________

I want to talk about CCS now.

With my 1500pts list I have only 245pts left to spend and I still need my one HQ choice.

For my HQ choice was thinking of this layout:
CCS w/Straken, carapace armor, regimental standard, and Astropath - 210pts

This leaves me with 35pts to spend. With the 35pts left I'm debating of two ways to spend it, 1.) take 2 plasma guns and a flamer which would follow the standard format of my veterans plus I'll have 5 plasma shots at 12" or 2.) take a plasma gun and lascannon as this will my anti-tank capabilities.


What do you guys think of my layout for my CCS?

What role do you have your CCS fulfill or why don't you take a CCS?

Also what do you think of Straken for a CCS?

Infantry, infantry, infantry...thats how we roll

PDBMC wrote:Infantry, infantry, infantry...thats how we roll

Wow thanks for posting the most pointless post I've ever seen on the forums. This topic is for discussions so if you have a point you like to share then present it so we can have a DISCUSSION about it and not posting stupid one liners...


Now to continue with the topic heres my full 1.5K list

HQ- CCS w/Straken, Carapace, Regimental Standard, Astropath, and either option A or B
A) 2 Plasma guns and 1 Flamer
B) Lascannon and 1 Plasma gun
Total - 245pts

Elite- Guardsmen Marbo
Total - 65pts

Troop- Veteran squad w/ PF, Flamer, 2 Melta guns, and Grenadier
Total - 140pts

X3 Veteran squad w/ Flamer, 2 Plasma guns, and Grenadier
Total - 135pts apiece or 405pts altogether

Fast Attack- Valk w/ Missile Pods
Total - 130pts

Heavy Support- LRBT w/ Lascannon
Total - 165pts

LRBT w/ Tri Heavy Bolters
Total - 170pts

LRD w/ Lascannon
Total - 180pts

Grand Total of 1500pts

Ailaros wrote:I'm not talking about list tailoring. If your opponent has transports, then, in order to take them down, you're going to have to spend way more points on autocannons then they are spending on transports. If your particular opponent is space marines, you need to spend over 200 points on autocannons for every 50 points he spends on rhinos.

You're missing the point here. Transports are massive force multipliers for many armies. Killing them is not about getting your points back. Against many armies the ability to immobilise or destroy their transports early in the game is the difference between winning or losing.

If you have eight infantry squads in your army in chimeras or on foot and they're going to be objective campers, forward objective takers, bubblewrap, whatever then spending 80 points to give them autocannons is a good investment. You've traded an increased cost of 80pts and the loss of 8 lasguns for the ability to reliably stun, immobilise or destroy 2 rhinos on turn one. That's approx 400pts of marines stuck in their deployment zone. Two squads that are not going to be in your face on turn two.

Quite likely, some of them will get to fire more than once which only makes them better value.

Where did everyone go?

So now one wants to talk about CCS, thats cool. What does everyone want to discuss about now?

And no feedback on my list?! I know my list isn't perfect... or is it?!


Also I thought I drew a line saying that we're dropping the whole AC debate? I want one whole page of not talking about that, thank you!