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.

But what constitutes a hybrid? I bring 2-3 chimeras.

You need a manticore. that is all.

I think 1 Chimera per ~500 points is a reasonable, if arbitrary, definition of a hybrid list. Combined with armor in Heavy Support and perhaps Fast Attack, it gives enough mobility to do some objective grabbing if you're careful, but doesn't take too many points.

In my force I use Infantry Squads armed with Plasmaguns as standard and all heavy weapons go into HWS this is usually backed up with 2x LRMBTS and a Demolisher if I am playing around 2000pts. This army preforms well as a gunline but in missions where I am required to capture obejectives or if counter attacking is a viable prospect I will advance the Infantry and tanks while the heavy weapons provide covering fire. To ensure my heavy weapons can fire most effectivly I deploy them on top of buildings/hill or in cover as part of the front rank.
This list works well and has lost me few games amongst my friends I play with. However I do doubt this would stand up to much in tournaments but me and my mates tend to play predominatly infantry armies at apocalypse scale games.

hmmm i have just read through this whole thread and it has been very helpful to me... Mainly murdog's posts i find that a very appealing army list/strategy and will probably try it out. And Ailaros i remember some past posts of yours with different thoughts than what you have on here.. seems like your being half and half.. or to stubborn..

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Static gunlines are just as viable now as they were back in previous editions. The difference being that now, it needs to be supplemented with a mobile element in order to be effective.

Static gunlines are now MUCH less viable than in previous editions.

In 4th ed, the only point was efficiency of killing power. You put your guys in cover so that they were hard to kill and you gave them long-range guns to do killing from the safety of cover.

In 5th ed. You can't put out the same kind of damage at range as you once could due to more better cover, so it doesnt' even work for 4th ed reasons anymore. Furthermore, in sieze ground, you're screwed straight away if you don't move. In capture and control, you're using infantry heavy weapons to try and get your opponent's deepstrikers from contesting your objective while they easily hold theirs. You don't even need to see this carnage first hand (which I have) to see how this is a very bad thing. Finally, with KP, the best, fastest way to claim them is in close combat as the -LD means you rack up the kills, while your opponent can always hide injured units from long-ranged firepower.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: I have a few Platoons that I keep on my board edge, loaded with heavy weapons and holding my 'home' objective. I then have an armoured assault section that consists of 2 x Demolishers, 2 x Vendettas and 4 x Chimeras (2 x melta-Vets, 1 x flamer-PCS, 1 x plasma-CCS). I find this to be a pleasant list to play as it comprises all the key elements of a Guard army into a fun and competitive package.

This is just fine, but it's also not a static gunline. It is a mechanized list where you dribble a couple of dudes in the backfield.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Basically, nearly everyone has found a use for, and employs, heavy weapons in their Guard to good effect. Ailaros does not like heavy weapons.

It's not that heavy weapons are utterly useless. I mean, 1 million multilasers will do a thorough job of taking down a guardian squad. The problem is that they're not good for what they cost. Much of my argumentation has been to try and get people to see these costs instead of just navel-gazing at single parts of weapon stat-lines.

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote: Ailaros i remember some past posts of yours with different thoughts than what you have on here.. seems like your being half and half.. or to stubborn..

Which posts?

Ailaros wrote:In 5th ed. You can't put out the same kind of damage at range as you once could due to more better cover, so it doesnt' even work for 4th ed reasons anymore. Furthermore, in sieze ground, you're screwed straight away if you don't move. In capture and control, you're using infantry heavy weapons to try and get your opponent's deepstrikers from contesting your objective while they easily hold theirs. You don't even need to see this carnage first hand (which I have) to see how this is a very bad thing. Finally, with KP, the best, fastest way to claim them is in close combat as the -LD means you rack up the kills, while your opponent can always hide injured units from long-ranged firepower.

The heavy weapons I use have an AP of 4, so all MEQ armies will get their saves anyway. Cover, despite your constant lauding as the face-changer of 5th ed., is simply not as prevelant as you make it out. Maybe in the club/games you play the board is drenched in terrain, but where I play this is simply not the case. . Players have to move out of cover in order to make use of their much-touted 5th ed. manouverability, and in doing so make themselves more vulnerable to my guns. If they choose to stay in said cover, bully for them, I get to shoot them more. Subjective? Maybe, but we're not playing Cities of Death here; fire lanes will emerge, and any good General can take advantage of this to at the very LEAST affect how his opponent moves their units.

In practically all the missions you shouldn't be relying upon your gunline Guardsmen to kill tons and tons of stuff, rather you should be using their firepower to supplement/complement the lethality of your other units. Use 2-3 PIS autocannons to blow up a Rhino and then battle-cannon the contents. Synergy is vital in Guard armies, and taking the notion that 'heavy weapons are bad because of X' is simply wrong. Instead, I prefer to say that: 'heavy weapons are good because they enhance unit Y.'

Ailaros wrote:This is just fine, but it's also not a static gunline. It is a mechanized list where you dribble a couple of dudes in the backfield.

It's a little bit of both, hence why I called it a hybrid list. I'm just defending the gunline section of my army and showing how it can still be used effectively in 5th ed.

Ailaros wrote:It's not that heavy weapons are utterly useless. I mean, 1 million multilasers will do a thorough job of taking down a guardian squad. The problem is that they're not good for what they cost. Much of my argumentation has been to try and get people to see these costs instead of just navel-gazing at single parts of weapon stat-lines.

Your back to using obscure examples to try and get your point across. If I was so inclined I would point out that, not only are those multi-lasers free, but they come on Chimeras, which would form the backbone of any mechanised list. Why demonise something your getting for nothing? Furthermore, heavy weapons are cheap. If you've already decided to take a Platoon (sans Al-Rahem) its a mere 10pts to give that PIS a pretty long threat range. Leapfrog them if you need the moblity, but its something else that your opponent has to think about. He can't ignore my PIS as I'm threatening his units by turn one. He doesn't have to worry about a melta-SWS until its 12-6" away from him. The more things he has to consider the more likely he'll be to make a mistake, which I will do my utmost to capitalise on.

L. Wrex

Ayup. Ailaros, you have to have a little imagination - it's not 18th century warfare for me, it's 5th edition 40K. I have to move to win. I will move to win. At 2000 pts I have 2 chimeras, LRBT, LRD, Hellhound and an A. Sent, all of which can move and fire, and contest, not to mention units firing from the hatches and scoring the chims. Thats in addition to CCS, 2x PCS, 6x PIS (w/specials in the chims usually) and 5x HWS, all of which can move 7-12" (close to 12" with RRR). It's a gunline 'cause it's 12 infantry units toting 22 heavy weapons in your face, not because it's sitting there wishing it was a mech army. Leapfrog, general advance, armoured assault, running a mortar team behind a russ for two turns to score. I've got options. Especially if half the enemy army is in reserve, waiting to deepstrike. None of which considers the fact I'm taking stuff down at range. You don't seem to even acknowledge that I will be killing things, forcing tests, busting vehicles, all at range. Dude, I've got a ton of firepower, not 'low' firepower.

You keep going on about deeptrikers ripping me apart - do you know what happens when a single unit appears next to 100 guard + pie? Hope it hits what it shoots at, and it better be a beefy one if it hopes to survive, or have some friends (hope you get those reserve rolls rocking) - but they'll likely be short-lived as well. That's if they don't suffer a mishap, and they choose to deepstrike in the places that i allow them to go (with 100 men, to a large extent i control deepstrike options for my opponent in my deployment zone). On that note, what are some of the things that can deepstrike and assault? Those are the real dangerous ones for me.

L. Wrex is right about the cover. You can't assume every approach to my guns will afford you cover. Especially when I am actively working to deploy/position so that there isn't. Cover is easier to come by, more troops get it during a game, and that has reduced the power of ranged. But on a balanced board (25% recommended) there are usually open lanes/areas, unless you were to spread a whole bunch of small terrain evenly all around the board. With my regular group, we usually fill a quarter of the board with terrain of varying types (saves, LoS blocking, area). Then we put it aside, have a roll-off, and take turns placing terrain until it's all out there. It becomes a little game in itself, with me wanting area terrain in the corners and LoS on the edges, and Orks and BA's wanting covered approaches to deployment zones. But here's one key thing you're missing about the cover: they want clear lanes to move, as the terrain slows them down, so it's a catch-22 for them. Ideal for them is LoS blocking terrain, which if possible I stay away from, or occupy.

I agree with most of what Ailaros says, but I feel like I need to point out that some of his conclusions depend on assuming that your enemy will come to you.

Yes, if your enemy is deploying at the leading edge of his DZ and rolling everything full speed with smoke toward your lines, then short-ranged guns like melta/flamer will be in range on turn 2 and 3.

But not every army will automatically rush headlong at every guard army. Some armies, and some scenarios, opponents will look at a short-ranged guard opponent, realize no antitank weapon shoots over 18" away, and decide to stand off and plink at easy KPs like command squads or whatever.

A guard army needs to be able to pose a credible threat to the enemy at ranges of 48" and more in order to deal with mobile/standoff armies.

And the great thing about Guard is you can have a ton of BOTH special and heavy weapons. You cover your bases (objectives, artillery, tanks) with special weapons. The heavy weapons, with their added range lend support wherever you need the firepower.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: the notion that 'heavy weapons are bad because of X' is simply wrong.

So you're saying that there is no way to make an argument that a weapon is bad? Does that mean all weapons are good?

Why don't we see armies crammed full of ogryn and punishers and techpriests with gun servitors, then?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: It's a little bit of both, hence why I called it a hybrid list. I'm just defending the gunline section of my army and showing how it can still be used effectively in 5th ed.

I bet I too could run an army reasonably successfully with 75% good units and 25% dead weight. Just because your good units are good doesn't mean your bad units are.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: multi-lasers free ... a mere 10pts... etc.

And you get what you pay for. Also, you're just talking about points, there are lots of costs involved.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: Leapfrog them if you need the moblity,

So the best way to use cruddy guns is to halve their effectiveness?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: The more things he has to consider the more likely he'll be to make a mistake, which I will do my utmost to capitalise on.

I agree. Infantry heavy weapons are only useful if your opponent makes mistakes.

murdog wrote:Ayup. Ailaros, you have to have a little imagination - it's not 18th century warfare for me, it's 5th edition 40K. I have to move to win. I will move to win. At 2000 pts I have 2 chimeras, LRBT, LRD, Hellhound and an A. Sent, all of which can move and fire, and contest, not to mention units firing from the hatches and scoring the chims. Thats in addition to CCS, 2x PCS, 6x PIS (w/specials in the chims usually) and 5x HWS, all of which can move 7-12" (close to 12" with RRR). It's a gunline 'cause it's 12 infantry units toting 22 heavy weapons in your face, not because it's sitting there wishing it was a mech army. Leapfrog, general advance, armoured assault, running a mortar team behind a russ for two turns to score. I've got options. Especially if half the enemy army is in reserve, waiting to deepstrike. None of which considers the fact I'm taking stuff down at range. You don't seem to even acknowledge that I will be killing things, forcing tests, busting vehicles, all at range. Dude, I've got a ton of firepower, not 'low' firepower.

Okay, but why spend any points to take any dead weight at all?

murdog wrote:You keep going on about deeptrikers ripping me apart - do you know what happens when a single unit appears next to 100 guard + pie?

Do you know what happens to your vehicles when a drop pod appears out of nowhere and deposits 10 sternguard with combi-meltas next to them?

murdog wrote:On that note, what are some of the things that can deepstrike and assault? Those are the real dangerous ones for me.

BA Vanguard veterans and demons, just off the top of my head.

Plus, what's to say they're not deepstriking nearby but out of LOS, and then jumping over and killing you the next turn?

murdog wrote:L. Wrex is right about the cover. You can't assume every approach to my guns will afford you cover.

I'm not. I AM assuming, though, that your opponent can give their own units cover with screeners and smoke and SMF and the like. Also, I'm assuming that with a fat wad of dudes in your deployment zone you won't always be able to stop your own units from getting in your own way, especially if some are advancing ahead of the others.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Some armies, and some scenarios, opponents will look at a short-ranged guard opponent, realize no antitank weapon shoots over 18" away, and decide to stand off and plink at easy KPs like command squads or whatever.

So what do you gain by deciding to stand off and plink at KPs that are tough to get?

Flavius Infernus wrote:A guard army needs to be able to pose a credible threat to the enemy at ranges of 48" and more in order to deal with mobile/standoff armies.

Sure, one threat is long range guns, but it isn't nearly as credible as it used to be. Meanwhile, a credible threat to standoff armies is mobility. That people have been talking of their successes with mobility I think matches specific examples to general theory.

Ailaros wrote:So you're saying that there is no way to make an argument that a weapon is bad? Does that mean all weapons are good?

Why don't we see armies crammed full of ogryn and punishers and techpriests with gun servitors, then?

Congratulations on cherry picking quotes and completely ignoring the second half of what I was saying. There is is argument for ALL weapons in a list; it just depends on how you synchonise those weapons with the rest of your army. Ripper guns, whlst not a personal preference of mine, could be made to fit alongside an army that is build on med-short range firepower. that's not how I play, so I don't use them. It doesn't mean that no-one can make them work; against an Ork tide Rpper guns are damn useful for example.

You need to stop quoting half-sections of my post to reply to, whilst ignoring the part that puts said post into context. It's a very sloppy form of arguement-building.

Ailaros wrote:I bet I too could run an army reasonably successfully with 75% good units and 25% dead weight. Just because your good units are good doesn't mean your bad units are.

No, my, ahem, 'bad' units serve to enhance my already 'good' units. Again, you've completely failed to grasp the key points behnd my argument.

Ailaros wrote:And you get what you pay for. Also, you're just talking about points, there are lots of costs involved.

AGAIN you miss the fact that you get these guns for a price that is practically free should you be interested in buying the unit in the first place! The costs involved are the base costs that you pay, there's no avoiding them, but for a relatively minor increase you can make that base cost unit better.

Ailaros wrote: I agree. Infantry heavy weapons are only useful if your opponent makes mistakes.

I never once stated that infantry heavy weapons are ONLY useful if your opponent makes mistakes. I said they were useful all the time, yet become even better when your opponent makes mistakes. Please do not twist what I am saying so it suits your arguement.

I only replied to the parts directed at me. As I said earlier, you really need to stop chopping off the parts of an arguement that you cannot/will not reply to in favour for a segment that, when taken completely out of context, you can then try and formulate an arguement against.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Ailaros wrote:So you're saying that there is no way to make an argument that a weapon is bad? Does that mean all weapons are good?

Why don't we see armies crammed full of ogryn and punishers and techpriests with gun servitors, then?

Congratulations on cherry picking quotes and completely ignoring the second half of what I was saying. There is is argument for ALL weapons in a list; it just depends on how you synchonise those weapons with the rest of your army. Ripper guns, whlst not a personal preference of mine, could be made to fit alongside an army that is build on med-short range firepower. that's not how I play, so I don't use them. It doesn't mean that no-one can make them work; against an Ork tide Rpper guns are damn useful for example.

You need to stop quoting half-sections of my post to reply to, whilst ignoring the part that puts said post into context. It's a very sloppy form of arguement-building.

so true, he does this quite often. You posed good arguments but he just chopped them in half, to make them suit his arguments, could you please pose a genuine argument or accept maybe another person is right

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:
so true, he does this quite often. You posed good arguments but he just chopped them in half, to make them suit his arguments, could you please pose a genuine argument or accept maybe another person is right

Not until every IG thread becomes a flamewar like every SOB one ;P

Grundz wrote:Not until every IG thread becomes a flamewar like every SOB one ;P

As much as I hate to admit it, I do actually foresee this happening...

L. Wrex

No he's using lawyer arguement tactics. Sadly what he doesn't realize is that the people he may convince will never tell him so and so for all he knows hes not convincing anyone...
Isay that not as a chibe but as the truth, hes picking an arguement in such a way that you can't counter with anything that can't be considered a personal attack or a repetition of what you've said. just like "Thank You for Smoking":
"I don't have to convince you, I'm trying to convince...them..."
...its like listening to my boss...

LOL. It looks like fun, let me try...

So you're saying that there is no way to make an argument that a weapon is bad? Does that mean all weapons are good?

I think he's saying that for the weapons we're talking about (heavy weapons), they are good. I know from many threads that you do not agree with that, so we will have to agree to disagree!

Why don't we see armies crammed full of ogryn and punishers and techpriests with gun servitors, then?

This kind of rhetoric does not further the analysis. We were talking about guard toting heavy weapons, which imo a list can be built around at any point level. Those three units are support, and would have to be analyzed a little differently.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: It's a little bit of both, hence why I called it a hybrid list. I'm just defending the gunline section of my army and showing how it can still be used effectively in 5th ed.

I bet I too could run an army reasonably successfully with 75% good units and 25% dead weight. Just because your good units are good doesn't mean your bad units are.

You don't know his balance, or his list, so those numbers mean nothing to this debate (whatever's left of it). That some of his units are bad is entirely your opinion, he never labelled them such.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: Leapfrog them if you need the moblity,

So the best way to use cruddy guns is to halve their effectiveness?

I'm not sure how moving units to win is halving their effectiveness, but I don't take cruddy weapons. I take heavy weapons, and if I need to move them, I do. There is so much context involved with whether or not you should move a unit with a heavy weapon or not that it makes no sense to just dismiss it. You need to have some imagination - not all my guns need to fire every round, especially not a single HW in a PIS.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: The more things he has to consider the more likely he'll be to make a mistake, which I will do my utmost to capitalise on.

I agree. Infantry heavy weapons are only useful if your opponent makes mistakes.

You must take great personal glee in using someone's words like that. If you think that heavy weapons are not useful, then again we simply must agree to disagree.

murdog wrote:Ayup. Ailaros, you have to have a little imagination - it's not 18th century warfare for me, it's 5th edition 40K. I have to move to win. I will move to win. At 2000 pts I have 2 chimeras, LRBT, LRD, Hellhound and an A. Sent, all of which can move and fire, and contest, not to mention units firing from the hatches and scoring the chims. Thats in addition to CCS, 2x PCS, 6x PIS (w/specials in the chims usually) and 5x HWS, all of which can move 7-12" (close to 12" with RRR). It's a gunline 'cause it's 12 infantry units toting 22 heavy weapons in your face, not because it's sitting there wishing it was a mech army. Leapfrog, general advance, armoured assault, running a mortar team behind a russ for two turns to score. I've got options. Especially if half the enemy army is in reserve, waiting to deepstrike. None of which considers the fact I'm taking stuff down at range. You don't seem to even acknowledge that I will be killing things, forcing tests, busting vehicles, all at range. Dude, I've got a ton of firepower, not 'low' firepower.

Okay, but why spend any points to take any dead weight at all?

Again, a simple "I do not agree with your conclusions" would do. It is obvious that I do not think of heavy weapons as dead weight, and I am not the only one. Your question is purely rhetorical, in that you know that, for murdog, the answer is: I do not think of them as dead weight, I use them every battle and blow stuff up all the time, I win games with them, etc. etc. etc. I'm not sure why you frame your rhetoric in such a way as to force the other to endlessly repeat themselves, but hey DATS THA INTAWEBZ, it's your right.

murdog wrote:You keep going on about deeptrikers ripping me apart - do you know what happens when a single unit appears next to 100 guard + pie?

Do you know what happens to your vehicles when a drop pod appears out of nowhere and deposits 10 sternguard with combi-meltas next to them?

I know that when someone says, 'uhhh, I'm keeping these sternguard in reserve' while eying my pie, I bubble wrap anything I don't want blowed up by them. Like I said above, it's really easy when you have 100 men.

murdog wrote:On that note, what are some of the things that can deepstrike and assault? Those are the real dangerous ones for me.

BA Vanguard veterans and demons, just off the top of my head.

Plus, what's to say they're not deepstriking nearby but out of LOS, and then jumping over and killing you the next turn?

See, that's the kind of stuff i want to hear. That's a real, stiff question. Hmmm. I will have to watch out for spots like that, and either occupy them or cover them or stay away from them. I'm finding the commieblob good for buying time with tough stuff like that. If they do land there, perhaps an assault is in order - tarpit with the commieblob if I have one. I have faced Mephiston on multiple occasions - he's about as scary as it gets for ripping into tanks, but bubblewrap and moving the tanks is the solution so far (don't get me wrong - sometimes I get outmaneuvered just like everyone else sometimes and my vehicles get taken out).

murdog wrote:L. Wrex is right about the cover. You can't assume every approach to my guns will afford you cover.

I'm not. I AM assuming, though, that your opponent can give their own units cover with screeners and smoke and SMF and the like. Also, I'm assuming that with a fat wad of dudes in your deployment zone you won't always be able to stop your own units from getting in your own way, especially if some are advancing ahead of the others.

Yep, you got us on the cover - it's more prevalent. I'm not complaining, now that there's no more consolidating into combat. Just have to watch out for the multicharge

Flavius Infernus wrote:Some armies, and some scenarios, opponents will look at a short-ranged guard opponent, realize no antitank weapon shoots over 18" away, and decide to stand off and plink at easy KPs like command squads or whatever.

So what do you gain by deciding to stand off and plink at KPs that are tough to get?

?
He's saying if you're outranged in a KP game, you've got problems. Don't matter how tough your squads are - they aren't all tough, so if he kills more than you do he wins, which is made easier by outranging you.

Flavius Infernus wrote:A guard army needs to be able to pose a credible threat to the enemy at ranges of 48" and more in order to deal with mobile/standoff armies.

Sure, one threat is long range guns, but it isn't nearly as credible as it used to be. Meanwhile, a credible threat to standoff armies is mobility. That people have been talking of their successes with mobility I think matches specific examples to general theory.

But my successes, or L. Wrex's successes, don't match your general theory, therefore we are wrong? I'm glad you're not over my shoulder when I'm playing

murdog wrote:
But my successes, or L. Wrex's successes, don't match your general theory, therefore we are wrong? I'm glad you're not over my shoulder when I'm playing

You are not the only ones. If you'll take me at my word, I know lots of Guard players that find heavy weapons useful, and I find them useful myself.

Where Ailaros is right:
1.) Close range attacks are more decisive than long range attacks.
2.) Long range weapons are not as effective as they were in 4th edition due to the increase in quantity and quality of cover saves.

These things, however, do not mean that heavy weapons cease to become effective.

One of the reason's I love the Guard is that you can pack in the special weapons. It's the trade-off for having pretty lousy CC troops. The thing is, though, that you can only physically pack so many short ranged special weapons into a particular area of the board, and the ideal limit is much less, because terrain, enemy chargers, and enemy firepower put limits on the places your guys can be. You are left with two options: 1.) Take more special weapons anyway, and fill in the ranks as they die, or 2.) Take heavy weapons that can fire on more targets due to their increased range.

Ailaros contends that the first option is the best, that more close range weapons are always better than more heavy weapons. He contends that the 1 or 2 turns you get to fire with weapons that have range of =< 12" (meltas, flamers, rapid fire plasma and lasguns) more than make up for the multiple turns of fire you lose with a heavy weapon. Mathematical analysis easily determines if this is a valid statement. The math has been demonstrated ad nauseum in various previous threads, but if anyone wishes various scenarios math-hammered out, I or any number of others can supply the required calculations.

as I recall though, it hasn't, as it is statistical (first of all) and secondly i seem to recall an entire thread where such "math" claimed it would take 11 turns to kill something like a chimera...when in reality the law of averages governs it less, similar to how rolling seven will take you 6 turns, but in reality you are most likely to roll a seven...
(as to the first of all, you're always gonna have people who ignore or blow off the mathhammer for the following reason:
"OMG DOOD SO LIKE I dunno what BA are or nothun but sum guy had a squad of these things called DEATHCOMPANY that he said were awesome and I like totally boomgunned them all to death, and like, destroyed 1800pts in one shot with a 135pt unit! it was epic!"
the above is very badly paraphrased from a thread I've seen...
So to that end I also find it good to factor in the fear factor, like doing true opportunity cost, in which case long range weapons seem far more viable
the best example being
My railhead. I was playing a guard guy, and he didnt really know tau (i got him into 40k so he was a lil wet behind the ears) and all he knew was that the railgun had a big gun that was scary and could kill gak and mathematically would annihilate his tanks and troops (more so on the troops, he was too poor to buy tanks really) to that end, the hammerhead was a major concern of his and a turning point in our fight, as he always maneuvered to avoid it, thereby cutting off a firelane.
Now I realize he was a noob, but he illustrates a key point i've seen on many battlereports: no one likes to have their gak blown up and will go to great lengths to avoid this. So having that gun with that long range can actually be more effective, as it will force your opponant to reconsider at the very least, and flee at best. In fact I've seen yakface himself (all hai l) admit to fearing something to that effect, as he was afraid of devestators with his tau, a unit that is HIGHLY frowned upon and thought to be "overcosted and inneffective"
So heavy weapons and long range guns are most definately EQUAL with ailaros' (im sorry i can never spell ur name :( ) beloved assault weapons

Don't know what category my list falls into, but I usually do fairly well with it. Two 30- man platoons, heavy and special weapons (las/plas), sgt w/power weapon/meltabombs in each squad. Run them as blobs regardless of scenario, with a PW commissar in each blob. Give the PCS chimeras and 4 x meltaguns. Psyker battle squad in a chimera, Company command with cox, standard and lascannon in a chimera, paskquisher, Exexcutioner and Colossus. Then toss in the soon to be lost Inq/Mystics and Callidus. Our club runs botha pyramid and a ladder and I'm either first or second on each.

" Company command with cox, "

Is it kinda like a Vox? otherwise...

Make it simple you need an anti infantry, anti heavy infantry, and anti vechils...Correct? Use the Punisher as anti infantry, Exectuioner as anti heavy, and Basalisks or Vanquishers as anti vechils. Also beleive me Valkryies arnt your beast choice unless you are playing apocolypse where you can use them as a flyer.

bob the heretic wrote:Make it simple you need an anti infantry, anti heavy infantry, and anti vechils...Correct? Use the Punisher as anti infantry, Exectuioner as anti heavy, and Basalisks or Vanquishers as anti vechils. Also beleive me Valkryies arnt your beast choice unless you are playing apocolypse where you can use them as a flyer.

Bob, the Manticore is much better at killing Infantry than the Punisher(IMHO!), and is good at killing vehicles too! and much cheaper than a tank to boot.

bob the heretic wrote:Make it simple you need an anti infantry, anti heavy infantry, and anti vechils...Correct? Use the Punisher as anti infantry, Exectuioner as anti heavy, and Basalisks or Vanquishers as anti vechils. Also beleive me Valkryies arnt your beast choice unless you are playing apocolypse where you can use them as a flyer.

punisher=anti-infantry!! It's so good!! NOT take a Reg Russ over that anyday.

alarmingrick wrote:

bob the heretic wrote:Make it simple you need an anti infantry, anti heavy infantry, and anti vechils...Correct? Use the Punisher as anti infantry, Exectuioner as anti heavy, and Basalisks or Vanquishers as anti vechils. Also beleive me Valkryies arnt your beast choice unless you are playing apocolypse where you can use them as a flyer.

Bob, the Manticore is much better at killing Infantry than the Punisher(IMHO!), and is good at killing vehicles too! and much cheaper than a tank to boot.

or that too