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.

Good point with charge blocking. And yeah, every time I face wither Long Fang or Broadside heavy armies there is always a nice levelled ruin on the board for them. Every. Single. Time.

So the best way to offset the disadvantage of a weapon being expensive for what it does is to spam them?

I can't be the only one who realises how silly this is. Yes, you create effectiveness through the sheer number, but as spamming them increases it's effectiveness, it also increases the percentage of your list that's absorbing points to put square pegs in round holes.

Why not just take weapons that are better for the job in the first place? That way you get the effectiveness without the bloat.

The problem is that you're the only person who thinks Krak Missiles are ineffective against AV12.

Right, just me, minigun, mwnciboo and flavius infernus so far this thread...

I mean, seriously

labmouse42 wrote:AV 12 Effected : 33.26% Destroyed : 7.24%

And this is without cover. Why do you choose to tall a 7.24% chance to blow up a transport effective? Especially when you only have a couple of turns to take them down before they hit your lines? Especially given that even though you've blow up their transport, they're still roughly just as fast on foot?

Because we're clearly stupid.

Stupid people that win tournaments, but still clearly stupid.

@Reecius

I wouldn't take a full squad because I prefer them to be in a rhino at all times. 2 fire points, so two missiles. Its not like their isn't enough fire power in a SW list elsewhere. This might not work for some people, its just what I would run so I can fit some other things in instead.

I prefer to not have units outside of transports at all, so that is part of the instance on rhinos.

Ailaros wrote:Right, just me, minigun, mwnciboo and flavius infernus so far this thread...

I mean, seriously

labmouse42 wrote:AV 12 Effected : 33.26% Destroyed : 7.24%

And this is without cover. Why do you choose to tall a 7.24% chance to blow up a transport effective? Especially when you only have a couple of turns to take them down before they hit your lines? Especially given that even though you've blow up their transport, they're still roughly just as fast on foot?

Because we don't need to destroy AV12 to stop them. What is so hard to understand about that?

One ML at 7.24% of destruction is not that great. When your firing 4 of them, the odds stack more in your favor.
4 of them in a dev squad could be considered anti-AV 12.

@Ailaros

I respect your opinion, but in this case you are just flat out wrong. 10 points a missile launcher is not expensive (what Long Fangs pay) it's criminally cheap.

As labmouse said, that 7.24% to destroy an av12 vehicle doesn't look like much until you multiply it by 5. Per Squad. Then multiply that by 3 squads. Then add in another 6 from Typhoons. That is JUST the missiles in my army (or most Missile Spam Wolf armies), not counting the las cannons, assault cannons, melta guns, heavy bolters, and plasma cannon.

And again, you don't have to KILL a tank to take it out of play. 33.26% to at minimum stop it from shooting from just ONE BS4 krak missile is amazing. for every 3 you shoot, one av12 tank is not shooting back. I have 21 missiles, that means 7 tanks are not shooting me, not including all my other guns.

I often shoot other armies DEAD by turn three with my tournament Wolves (not tabled, but utterly neutered). And the missiles are what do it. They also shred infantry. I have put 20+ wounds on marine squads with frags missiles from a long fang squad before.

So again, no offense intended, but it is a proven fact that missile launchers dominate the game right now. That may change, in fact I am sure it will as new dexes come in and alter the meta, but right now, the missile launcher is king.

@Notabot

I have seen some people do that and it is an interesting tactic, but I see several problems with it.

1.) A Rhino is AV11, one shot stuns it, none of your missiles are firing.

2.) Long fangs are cheap. The cheapest way to put missile launchers on the table right now. By taking a 4 man squad in a rhino you are not taking full advantage of those cheap weapons. If you are worried about them dying too fast, you need more units. Missile wolves work through target saturation. If you have 15 missiles firing out of 3 squads they are so much harder to shut down. Pair that with lots of other light vehicles to draw attention such as Typhoons, Razorbacks, Logan Terminators or Dreads, Squads of Grey Hunters or onrushing assault units like T.Wolves, and the Long Fangs sink on the target priority list. Putting them in a rhino really hamstrings them and makes them easier to take out of play.

3.) That Rhino must remain stationary. You want mobile tanks maneuvering for firing positions, charge blocking, objective grabbing and contesting and tank shocking. You really don't want a tank that turns into a very weak, static pillbox that limits the amount of firepower you put out.

Just food for thought, of course. If your tactics work for you, then keep doing what you're doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Polonius

Hahaha, right? What would winning a few Grand Tournaments prove?

Lascannons are currently a nullfactor in the fact that they are an expensive weapon that is outdone in every way by far lesser weapons. If lascannons were ap1 it would balance them out, and they have a right to be.

Str10 is the way to go for av14 in the form of long ranged firepower, If not, str 8 melta is. Failing that, autocannons do a great job of transport popping. And to add injury to insult, a twin linked assault cannon can destroy av14 better than a lascannon. There is no use for them other than for convinience.

Tis a sad thing.

Devs are expensive, and I would rather take a Pred with TLC and LC Sponsons. I think we have argued full circle on this one but the things I have concluded from all the advice and opinions are the following points.

1. Killing Armour isn't always the point, stopping them firing at you is almost as good.
2. ML's are cheap and effective against a myriad of threats, but not that great against Ar13, 14 (the Really heavy stuff).
3. LC are best off on individual units such as TAC squads or Sternguard.
4. You need alot of ML's to make them viable 20+.
5. Melta's are everyone's favourite, but you need to be close!

Personally I cannot justify sacraficing my Heavy Support slots for 3 Dev squads to have only 12 ML's.....

Reccius:- How thel did you get 20+ ML's , you get punished at some tournaments for repeat units to stop Mega Spamming as it is not in the spirit of the Game (A whole army of Dreads is legal, but its also dull and ruins the idea of friendly games. You might as well say I am fielding a Primarch, beat that, oh what you can't! Well, lets call it a win to me before we've even rolled a dice!).

You dont need a lot of missiles for them to be effective, but more > less.

As an example of why missiles are not bad, look at some of the metagame choices that missiles are good at.

Eldar: Energy Fields make las cannons into missile launchers anyway, and the eldar dont rock a 2+ armor save, thus the launchers dual firing mode make it superior without even considering the point differece.

Orks: las is better versus meganobs, but the dual firing make launchers better for everything else. More shots are needed versus orks thanks to the mek KFF, so since missiles are cheaper you should probably have more missile shots than las cannon shots.

Necrons: Las can kill a monolith, missiles cant... but there is always phase out that solves your problems anyway.

Dark Eldar: more missile shots to counter darklance spam versus less shots with costly las cannons.

Nids: missiles bust up all the MCs you care about, and frag mode is better versus horde, meaning las is only useful when shooting at the few models that get feel no pain.

Tau: Las can get past broadsides armor, but so can assault with a fist. Missiles can kill everything else they bring, and kroot dont like the s4 blasts at all.

So while missiles may worse when facing a 6 land raider army, there are times when missiles are better, making their usefulness come down to points and local metagame influences. Since missiles are cheaper, they win on the points side.

This leaves your local metagame as the only real variable. Thus, if you feel that the local metagame is so stacked against missile launchers, pull them out. Instead, if you notice that you have a diverse playfield, because missiles are cheaper they become the best answer.

mwnciboo wrote:Devs are expensive, and I would rather take a Pred with TLC and LC Sponsons. I think we have argued full circle on this one but the things I have concluded from all the advice and opinions are the following points.

1. Killing Armour isn't always the point, stopping them firing at you is almost as good.
2. ML's are cheap and effective against a myriad of threats, but not that great against Ar13, 14 (the Really heavy stuff).
3. LC are best off on individual units such as TAC squads or Sternguard.
4. You need alot of ML's to make them viable 20+.
5. Melta's are everyone's favourite, but you need to be close!

Personally I cannot justify sacraficing my Heavy Support slots for 3 Dev squads to have only 12 ML's.....

Reccius:- How thel did you get 20+ ML's , you get punished at some tournaments for repeat units to stop Mega Spamming as it is not in the spirit of the Game (A whole army of Dreads is legal, but its also dull and ruins the idea of friendly games. You might as well say I am fielding a Primarch, beat that, oh what you can't! Well, lets call it a win to me before we've even rolled a dice!).

Not in the spirit of the game? What is this line of BS? Comp? I thought the idea of a tourney was competition, something that doesn't exist if you aren't trying to win. It is perfectly legal, and screw any event that doesn't allow somebodies LEGAL army they purchased, built, painted, and possibly heavily converted. And screw any event that wants to play "my way" 40k. As for MEGA SPAMMING. I call it sound military doctrine.

As for how to get the 20+ ML, it's not that hard. 15 from heavy support (in wolves) + how many typhoon speeders you want to run. Hell, C:SM can even do it, just not as cheaply (but they can bring even more since their troops can get them)

I also disagree with the premise of Points 2,3, and 4.

2: Fire 4 missiles at armor 13, there is a good chance you glance it. (3 hit, 1/3 will glance or better, so 1 glance or better). AV 14 is a pita, but if you must, missiles can glance it. Other than the land raider, it is possible to make it very hard for that AV 14 unit to advance without exposing lesser armor.
3: Lascannons in tac squads aren't that great. Lascannons in stern guard aren't that great. A single shot lascannon from tacs isn't efficient, and the same thing goes for the 2 that sternguard get. Especially with the sternguard, as you have 3 rather expensive guys with nice ammo/weapon options standing around while the dorks with the cannons try to kill things.
4: You don't need a bunch of ML to make them viable. Assuming there is other good HW support (like speeders, Las/plas razors, dreds) you can make do with lesser amounts.

You want Lascannons? Take razorbacks, predators, dreds, and land raiders. Razors can TL or add TL plasma at the cost of losing TL on the LC. Preds can take somewhat cheap LC with an auto cannon, or go for the more expensive TL LC + 2x LC option. A regular LR is still a nice counter assault bunker that does a fair job of fire support. Dreds aren't very durable, but a ML/TLLC Dred can sit in the corner and snipe all day, well outside of most enemy weapon fire.

Yuber wrote:Because we don't need to destroy AV12 to stop them. What is so hard to understand about that?

It's not a matter of misunderstanding what a "stunned" result means. It's a matter of questioning what the point of doing that is.

So you immobilize a transport? So instead of driving nearly 12" a turn, they run nearly 12" a turn. Whoop-dee-doo. If you were guaranteed to do this every time, there might be some utility to this, but as you're spending a bunch of points for the CHANCE to do this...

Reecius wrote:And again, you don't have to KILL a tank to take it out of play.

When dealing with vehicles whose sole purpose is to do damage, then yes. As such, if you're playing against falcon spam or ravager spam or sentinel spam, then by all means.

Of course, there are three basic camps of vehicles you're shooting at, transports (in which case, what's the deal if you temporarily stop them?), vehicles where you're spending WAY more to stop them than they spent to bring them, and vehicles which your odds of doing anything to are very low. Of course, you can draw from multiple categories simultaneously.

Reecius wrote:10 points a missile launcher is not expensive (what Long Fangs pay) it's criminally cheap.

The UPGRADE is cheap. The squad as a whole with regards to regular devastators is very expensive.

Reecius wrote:As labmouse said, that 7.24% to destroy an av12 vehicle doesn't look like much until you multiply it by 5. Per Squad. Then multiply that by 3 squads. Then add in another 6 from Typhoons.

As I mentioned, you can create effectiveness by taking multiples. I also said that while you multiply the damage, you're also multiplying the disadvantage of taking these weapons.

Reecius wrote:Long fangs are cheap.

Right, see my previous statement about longfangs.

Of course, any squad that gets out of a transport loses the protection of that transport. It can be shot at, assaulted, etc. You also have situations were squads use the transport as bunkers, and stunning them prevents the squad inside from shooting.

All I know is that I play bugs and missiles never have time to shoot my hordes up enough...they focus their firepower on my MCs and thank goodness they do because FnP instantly reduces their firepower effectiveness by half.

Stack on all the possibilities for cover saves and now they are reduced by 75%

15 missiles shot at one MC now results in two wounds.

*yawn*

15 frag missiles at gants in the same situation...we'll say 4 hits per even...10 gants dead...

*I'm bored*

Missiles are great for multi functionality...but it isn't amazing at either of it's functions.

Let Dev squads be Dev squads and put your anti troop elsewhere.

If your'e playing somebody that doesn't know to knock out the cover save generating guy and to not shoot at the MC with FNP.... well let's just say you shouldn't blow your shoulder out patting yourself on the back.

Ailaros wrote:So you immobilize a transport? So instead of driving nearly 12" a turn, they run nearly 12" a turn. Whoop-dee-doo.

If not being in a transport is "Whoo-dee-doo" why use them at all?

Yeah, I think if you read Ailoros's points as a whole, he's basically saying that there is no reason to shoot at vehicles.

Obviously that's an overstatement, but i think one reason he devalues long range shooting to eliminate transports is because he doesn't play with long range shooting that can than rip up the squad inside. In a well built gunline, stunning a transport makes the player choose between breaking up his assault by keeping a squad back, or disembarking and facing the guns without protection.

Likewise, when facing another shooting army, shaking a shooting vehicle buys time. Long fangs can't be shaken, and at LD9 they're rarely. pinned.

When you temporarily stop transports your opponent cant advance his whole army as one unit which sets you up in successive turns to focus fire on isolated threats instead of everything in your face all at once. If you stop all of some ones rhinos from moving and only the land raider that you ignored can move on his turn he'll either waste a turn "waiting up" for the rest of his units or push forward alone or try to spit out all of his tac squads with no protection.

If he waits up he essentially looses a turn and gives you time to repeat what just happend again or try to focus on his long range support. If he pushes forward alone you can try to move block his heavy hitters like leman russes or land raiders with things like speeders or your cheap transports and position your melta units to take them out and hes then at risk of loosing ALOT of points worth of tanks in one turn. If he spits his guys out which you seem to think is the best option most balanced shooty armies have enough firepower to smoke powered armored dudes out in the open and hes now at huge risk of loosing all of his scoring units and what scoring units he does have have lost their mobility. Whether its chimeras, rhinos or razors if significant portions of his army (transports) are not moving or shooting in early turns your opponent is going to have a huge up hill battle to fight in later turns even if most of his transports end up living because you kept rolling 2s on the damage chart.

@Jason
I agree with your analysis except for two points. Las Cannons are ap2 which is great for termies, t-fexes, mega nobs, etc. The main reason I take them mixed with assault cannons is for their range. 48" range is just so useful. If not for that, MLs and Assault Cannons all day.

@wmnciboo
You don't need 20+ ML's, although that is great! I have 3 typhoons and 3 squads of Fangs in my army. I could easily take more missiles, but I like to mix it up with Las Cannons, assault cannons, and meltas to meet all threats. Even a single Dev squad with missiles is very effective, but more is better. And again, they are NOT weak against av13. Do the math, your odds are just fine for taking down av13. It's 14 you struggle with.

So LR's you leave to your meltas, las and assault cannons. Monoliths, well you ignore them of course. Go for phase out.

As for a missile spam army not being in the spirit of the game? That is a matter of opinion. No where in the book does it say: though shalt not take more than X amount of missile launchers!

What would you take in heavy support? Even for regular marines, dev squads are a great buy. The problem with predators is that, while they are good and 3 las preds in the back field is going to ruin a lot of people's day, one shot can stun them and they aren't shooting. Devs don't worry about that. Also, preds aren't mobile anymore due to the one rule I hate in 5th ed (strength 4 defensive weapons). Devs or Preds (or vindies) work well.

Marines take MLs in their fast attack. Typoons in a squadron can put down massive firepower. Wolves can only take one typhoon per squad, unfortunately. Marines can take 9. A unit of two or three is just a hammer, and in my Marine lists I like to take a unit of three, or two of two often.

I wouldn't take my tournament wolves to a Saturday pickup game though, because that army pile drives the average army with ease. It wouldn't be fun. I only take it to tournaments where so far, I have lost one game in 4 tournaments with it. That loss was a mental error on my part and me being nice and allowing my opponent to do something that changed the game when he hadn't declared it before the game started.

@DevianID
You get it. I agree with all of your points.

@Notabot
Yes, I agree. Comp is not needed at a tournament. If it's there, you deal with it and simply make a powerful army within the artificial restrictions, but comp systems are just fail. The codexes are sufficient for comp.

I like individual Las Cannons though. I can see no better way to take them. The 5 man combat squad tac unit with a las is a great objective camper. I often take a few of them to sit back and shoot. Although the twin linked version on razorbacks, dreads and such are better as they are more accurate and mobile, as you pointed out.

@Ailaros
I think you are getting defensive because you are making arguments that lack any logic to them.

There are NO drawbacks to missile launchers. None. Taking lots of them doesn't make them worse. That argument is a straw man because your fundamental premise is flawed.

If you have a 33% chance to damage a vehicle then stunning it is the least amount of damage you do. That is the assurance. Everything else is doing more damage.

And Falcons are not damage dealing tanks. Falcons are incredibly annoying super taxis that deliver harlies and fire dragons and then contest objectives. It is a fact though, that the missile launcher is the best weapon against Eldar. We did the math on that a million times. Dark Eldar spam anything gets obliterated by missile spam. I know because I see it at tournaments often. It's the one of two builds Dark Eldar do not want to pull at a tournament.

You don't take missiles on regular devs with Marines, you take them on typhoons. Devs with missiles isn't a bad choice at all. 5 devs with 4 missile launchers is 150. Not exactly bloated in cost by any means.

So what do you suggest? Massed strength 8 is currently the most efficient way to use heavy weapons in the game. But I would like to hear what you think is better as we may have missed something in the tournament scene. What weapons load out do you think is superior? I am always open to new tactics but after extensive play testing we have found missiles to rule the roost. As I said, I have lost one game with my tournament wolves against some hardcore tournament armies with good generals behind them. Perhaps I am wrong though, so please illuminate me.

@ductvader
You must be playing against some incredibly poor players. Anyone wasting their missiles on an MC in cover with catalyst on them is a fool.

I do not fear tyranids at all with my Wolves. The only units that give me pause or Ymgarls and T-Fexes. Everything else is easy picking to a true shooty army. Of course, a lot depends on the mission, deployment and player.

A good player kills the tervigons first. If they catalyst themselves, then you kill something that doesn't have FnP. Very simple. You don't shoot what is hardest to kill. I would think that would be obvious. Polonius, hahah, again, you kill me man! I am going to use that line, don't blow your shoulder patting yourself on the back.

Even with three Tervigons, you can only catalyst 3 units, assuming no psyker defense, which any good list that can take, should take. That leaves the rest of your army open to carpet bombing with frags or kraks for MC's and medium bugs.

I promise you, if you play a true tournament shooting list commanded by a good payer, you will neither be bored nor yawn, you will be using every ounce of skill you have to get into combat. I play Nids and against nids frequently and know for certain how deadly missil spam is.

ALso, what point are you making with the statement let devs be devs? Hahaha, so giving them missile launcher is somehow not being devs?

And the missile launcher isn't great at either of it's functions? Please explain that. Because point for point, no gun is better. I am curious to see how we are all getting this wrong and why missile spam wolves are apparently mistakenly kicking ass in tournaments.

We have broken down the numbers here on Dakka for years. It is a FACT that the most efficient use of points for dev squads is to go anti infantry/light and medium armor. The lower points cost of these types of weapons is best taken advantage of in dev squads. Tac squads/dreads/razorbacks get cheaper heavy anti-tank weapons. It is more efficient to use them there. That is playing the game smart.

What weapons do you suggest on Devs? And I would like to see the math please, to support your assertions. Perhaps we have been getting it wrong here all these years.

I find autocannons generally more effective than missile launchers, especially versus Eldar, Dark Eldar, and mechanized Marines. They do suffer a little against AV13, but missile launchers aren't particularly good for taking out AV13 either, and most AV13 targets only need to be glanced anyway. Autocannons are also much more effective against Imperial Guard heavy weapon squads. Unfortunately, Devs and Long Fangs can't take autos-- however, Chaos Marine Havocs can.

Long Fangs, while a lethal unit, are both very vulnerable to return fire and seriously hindered by Dawn of War. In fact, in several games, I've managed to kill entire Long Fang packs before they got a chance to attack.

labmouse42 wrote:If not being in a transport is "Whoo-dee-doo" why use them at all?

I don't, personally.

I can see them as useful for providing a measure of durability to fragile, expensive units (like khorne bezerkers or howling banshees or guard veterans), but otherwise the only reason to take them is because they look cool.

Polonius wrote:Yeah, I think if you read Ailoros's points as a whole, he's basically saying that there is no reason to shoot at vehicles.

No point in shooting at transports with long range firepower, actually.

Polonius wrote:he doesn't play with long range shooting that can than rip up the squad inside.

I used to run an infantry-artillery company. 2 manticores and a basilisk in 1500 seems like enough.

Polonius wrote:In a well built gunline, stunning a transport makes the player choose between breaking up his assault by keeping a squad back, or disembarking and facing the guns without protection.

This is true. Of course, gunlines, however well built, run against the meta of 5th ed. It seems poor consolation to hammer stuff coming out of transports every once in awhile if you're loosing games all the time. Against noobs, gunlines can still work great. Against everyone else...

cromwest wrote:When you temporarily stop transports your opponent cant advance his whole army as one unit which sets you up in successive turns to focus fire on isolated threats instead of everything in your face all at once.

What? Troops in transport usually move a bit under 12" a turn. Troops sprinting usually move a bit under 12" a turn. One of the big flaws with this kind of thinking is that we're no longer in a 4th ed world where you have the option of walking 6" or driving 12". The above statement WAS true, but it isn't anymore.

Reecius wrote:There are NO drawbacks to missile launchers. None. Taking lots of them doesn't make them worse. That argument is a straw man because your fundamental premise is flawed.

Yes, I know that taking more increases the overall effectiveness. To say that there is no drawbacks implies that you don't think they have a cost. Yes, if you got free missile launchers everywhere in your army, then of course I'd take them.

As it is, they do have a cost. As it is, the points cost of taking missile launcher devastators is higher than the points cost gained from what you kill. This is a drawback.

When you add more missile launchers, you get more points cost killed, but you also have to pay more yourself. This means that the disadvantage is equal to the number of them that you take. As such, taking more means getting more advantage AND more disadvantage.

Reecius wrote:So what do you suggest?

Against transports? Worry about the cargo, not the transport. Against light vehicles? Bolters, krak grenades, and power fists do wonders. Against heavy vehicles? Multimelta is neat. So is a group of combi-melta sternguard piling out of a drop pod and blowing up two tanks at once.

The fact that marines don't actually have a lot of points-effective ways of dealing with vehicles (or really anything for that matter) is one of the reasons I think that marines are a deceptively difficult army to play.

@Ailaros: Oh God, I dont know what you have been smoking, Im not gonna argue anymore. If you think that 5 krak missiles will only "shake" a transport, then you must have been playing a different game

5 krak missiles against a chimera which popped smoke will do anything to the vehicle on a .8. Of course, much of this is insignificant damage. To destroy it, you're looking at about a quarter of the time.

How many points are you spending to take down a 55 point transport?

Given that you only have a couple of turns to take it down before it unloads cargo, that means you need to take two devastator squads. HOW much are you spending to take down a 55 point transport?

And even if you do anything to the transport, so what? They get out and run. They're already likely at half field anyways, so you haven't actually slowed them down that much, if at all.

Holy.

Crap.

I am wasting my breath here. Ailaros, brother, you are so wrong it actually hurts me to read what you are saying. No offense but you are stubbornly sticking to horrible ideas that are utterly incorrect.

I forgot why I stopped posting in the tactics and army lists sections. It's a waste of time. When did Dakka change so much? You used to get rock solid advice here. Gunlines don't work? Transports aren't good? Don't shoot transports but worry about what's inside? Please tell me someone else sees the obvious fallacies in these statements? Oh well. Everyone is entitled to play the game the way they choose to.

I will continue to win or place top 5 in tournaments with my obviously crappy tactics and ideas while the REAL experts here do there thing.

@Fetterkey
As a parting tip, you give Long Fangs razorbacks. Fixes the problem of DoW and you let the Grey hunters ride around in them. Also, Fangs are susceptible to return fire, which is why in a good shooty wolves list you depend on target saturation. Lots of Fangs, lots of unique shooting units. Fangs in cover become less juicy of a target when there are lots of low AV tanks to shoot instead. Plus, three squads is 9 times better than 1 squad of fangs. Triple the durability, triple the firepower. You have to take lots of them, one squad is too easy to kill.

And with that, I'm out. Good luck to those of you who think missiles are weak. That's funny.

Well, Reecius, you clearly only play noobs at those GTs if you win with gunlines. That's what Ailaros claims, anyway.

The irony is that you're the kind of guy that flies against conventional wisdom when it's wrong: just look at you're foot eldar.

I'm not one to blindly appeal to authority, but I'd take Ailaros more seriously if he won something. Even in his own battle reports he's under .500. I'm winning something like .750 or more in 5th with my IG.

Ailaros wrote:5 krak missiles against a chimera which popped smoke will do anything to the vehicle on a .8. Of course, much of this is insignificant damage. To destroy it, you're looking at about a quarter of the time.

How many points are you spending to take down a 55 point transport?

Given that you only have a couple of turns to take it down before it unloads cargo, that means you need to take two devastator squads. HOW much are you spending to take down a 55 point transport?

And even if you do anything to the transport, so what? They get out and run. They're already likely at half field anyways, so you haven't actually slowed them down that much, if at all.

First of all, Im not even sure why a Chimera would unload its cargo when they are safer inside in the 1st place.

Secondly, you talk as if the ML LF can only shoot once. Dude, if i take out 1 chimera every turn, the LF would have payed of their points twice over. Pray that when I do explode your Chimera, that not much of your guardsmen die. Then again chimeras arent the only thing to shoot.

Thridly,You contradict yourself. You say its not a good idea to shoot transports faraway then you stress the point that shooting transports are pointless if they are already in the mid field. They wouldn't have reached the midfield if i started shooting them before getting there, would they?

Get 5 dice and try to roll them. See how the odds stack in favor of the ML's against AV12 even after popping smoke.

Reecius wrote:I am wasting my breath here. Ailaros, brother, you are so wrong it actually hurts me to read what you are saying. No offense but you are stubbornly sticking to horrible ideas that are utterly incorrect..

For some reason I was thinking of religion when I read this and it made me giggle....Back to the Thread through.

Typhoons are definitely something I need to invest in, in the future. I am going to run a few games with 2 4xML Dev squads and see what happens. I think this thread might just run and run.

On the subject of Tournaments and spamming, Legal Army's are one thing, but that almost takes the position that the GW rules are perfect and they are far from perfectly balanced. Cardiff Carnage 2010 this Year ran a special points system which would deduct points from a possible 20 bonus points for multiple units, i actually think it was fair as commanders and tourney players who had balanced armies gained points (plus it is far more challenging for them) than some armies where they had multiple or loads of particular units.

Despite many peoples personal effrontery to this, the tournament went ahead and was full booked and all players played along voluntarily and commented on how it made for better tactics of the fly rather than a dogmatic "Soviet" approach where the player pretty much uses his army in exactly the same way each time...Just because it's Legal doesn't make it right! (Just like Slavery in the 18th century) The fact that rules and laws change is a good thing as nothing is perfect and we should strive to better them....

mwnciboo wrote:Just because it's Legal doesn't make it right! (Just like Slavery in the 18th century) The fact that rules and laws change is a good thing as nothing is perfect and we should strive to better them....

And /thread.

Way to compare comp to slavery.

Inb4 Godwin.

Back on topic though, it is hard to dispute that mass missle launchers will crack the prevalence of light transports in 5th edition. They are just good at it. And cracking light transports is the name of the game in KP (1 KP per!), VP (Juicy Centers inside!) and Objectives (You're gonna tank shock me and/or get to the objective how?).