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.

Ailaros wrote:Fine - GL's are basically just blast lasguns unless you want a 5% chance to stop a rhino (assuming it doesn't just fix itself the next turn) or a 1% chance of stopping a chimera...

I would much rather have a 5% chance of doing something than a 0% chance of doing nothing. I'm also not sure where your getting the 5% chance from either to be honest, I don't need to immobilise the Rhino, a mere stun will suffice.

Ailaros wrote:Seriously, GL's are terrible against vehicles.

They're not supposed to be amazing against vehicles. They are a very cheap upgrade that gives a standard PIS the chance to do some additional damage, as the GL is better than a lasgun and synergises very well in a PIS which will normally be touting a heavy weapon as well. They're not the ultimate answer to enemy armour, but they have the potential to perform both roles as/when the IG player needs them to for a very, very good price.

Ailaros wrote:As compared to a meltabomb, or other upgrades elsewhere (depends on what the list looks like, of course), I dont' see the value of spending points to always do very poor damage compared to something that often does literally no damage, but can easily be a game-changer when it is effective.

You are obviously a person who isn't comfortable with small returns for a small investment, you are much happier when you get a potentially massive payout at the risk of doing absoloutely nothing 9/10 games. This is fine, as I stated above we both have wildly different builds to our IG armies. I haven't an issue with this, as variety within a codex is great to see. What I object to is your constant dismissal of weaponry simply because it doesn't fit a playstyle that you laud.

Perhaps you need to take a step back and realise that people construct their armies in different ways and thus would view a gun/upgrade in a diifferent light than yourself? You say 'Those 5pts are best spent on meltabombs as they will actually do some damage to vehicles in an assault.' I say: 'My PIS spend all game inside Chimeras, never assault and have absoloutely no need for meltabombs whatsoever, as my dedicated anti-tank is elsewhere in my list.' Am I slating meltabombs and saying they are a useless attribution of your points allowance? No, I am merely saying that my playstyle doesn't suit a meltabomb upgrade and I'm much happier using those points on another gun which I will get infinetely more use out of over the course of the game.

L. Wrex

It's actually closer to an 8.5% chance of stunning, immobilizing, or destroying a rhino with a single krak grenade. That does down if smoked, and up if given BiD. Since there is only one weapon, the 3% chance of getting a weapon destroyed does have some value. If it's an MSU build, or a razorback, than even the 3% shaken result has value.

it's disengenous to spout stats without context. If I defined effective shooting as being able to deal damage at targets over 12" away, than melta guns wouldn't look very good. But that's a dumb definition.

If you want anti-infantry, than of course you take flamers. If you want dedicated anti-tank, you take a melta. But if you want your IS to hold an objective and shoot at range, there is no other option than the humble GL, aside from the pricey plasma gun.

The reason I don't max out the anti-infantry abilities of my platoon squads is twofold: 1) 6 lasguns isn't exactly great anti-infantry firepower in the first place, and 2) in my metagame, you have to get the infantry out of transports before you can shoot them.

My grenade launchers don't do much. I find it frustrating. But i don't want to put more points into a squad that's essentially there to hold the fort.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: I don't need to immobilise the Rhino, a mere stun will suffice.

Unless they have extra armor, of course.

In any case, what do you actually gain from temporarily stopping a rhino? Why spend points and weapons slots on something that has such a small chance of even a marginal return?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: You are obviously a person who isn't comfortable with small returns for a small investment, you are much happier when you get a potentially massive payout at the risk of doing absoloutely nothing 9/10 games.

Right, I fundamentally fail to understand why someone would pay points for something that they know will be crappy all of the time. Instead, it makes way more sense to take something that has the reasonable chance to be game-changing. This is because 40k has a skill element to it. It's not just a matter of me taking a meltabomb and hoping my opponent drives next to it. Instead, I have control through movement and deployment. I can get weapons to where they need to be to get the job done.

As such, because I have some control over the circumstances, the chance that a weapon will do nothing whatsoever goes down. Furthermore, it goes down farther the better I get at using them. Eventually, through hard work, I can get a much better chance that a meltabomb will do something than merely 1 in 10. Meanwhile, crappy weapons that are always crappy benefit little from skill and learning to play well on the field. A GL is just as crappy in the hands of a noob as a master. While certain weapons will never get better, others will, and are also very useful when they come through in those times when they are used against their intended targets.

Meanwhile, crappy weapons that are always crappy benefit little from skill and learning to play well on the field. A GL is just as crappy in the hands of a noob as a master. While certain weapons will never get better, others will, and are also very useful when they come through in those times when they are used against their intended targets.

I would argument to the contrary. You mention your own mastery, but you seem to forget about the opponent. Yes you have control about what you do and maybe skill doing this, but the opponent has the same. And long range shooting has a preparing effect during the first 2 turns. It is the key to deny the opponent his mobility, which is good for your own positioning. If I stun rhinos the whole game I wont kill anything, but neither does my opponent. And above that he will not be able to move.

The weapons you define crappy work through numbers. 1 Grenade launcher does nothing, but 6 of them have a good chance doing something interesting to a rhino. (30p: 3 hits -> 1 result -> about 50% chance to do more than shaken. And grenade launchers are only secondary weapons.)

And crappy mass shooting is statistically better than good elite shooting. You see this with Orks and BS5.

6 BS5 Rokkits are better than 3 BS4 Krak Missiles. Both normally hit 2 times, but the orks have the possibility to hit 6x. The bs4 guys havent.
So the argument bs5 is crappy so dont shoot with orks is not valid.
The same applies to the grenade launcher and his comrades.
If you have many bad weapons, you are normally as good as with few good weapons, but the many weapons may perform better than the good weapons, because of their numbers.
(A guy with 8 arms can hit 8 enemies. A guy with 1 arm can only hit 1 enemy even though he is the master of kung fu...)

Of course you need meltas, but grenade launchers still have their value. I personally like it, if I can stop the enemy from turn 1 on.

Ailaros wrote:In any case, what do you actually gain from temporarily stopping a rhino? Why spend points and weapons slots on something that has such a small chance of even a marginal return?

Extra armour costs 42% of a whole Rhino. I have never seen it run due to that cost.

What do you stand to gain!?! Are you serious?! How about stopping a 200+ point Space Marine squad from moving and/or shooting for a turn? You tout the importance of manouverability in 5th Ed and then ask what I stand to gain from taking away my enemy's movement? Are you trying to be rhetorical or just clutching at straws? You also fail to bear in mind that a GL isn't a primary weapon, its not even a secondary weapon. Its a tertiary weapon that has the potential to cause damage, and I'll also re-iterate; a small chance of even a marginal return is better than no chance of any return whatsoever, particularly when the cost to the IG player is practically nil.

Ailaros wrote:Right, I fundamentally fail to understand why someone would pay points for something that they know will be crappy all of the time. Instead, it makes way more sense to take something that has the reasonable chance to be game-changing.

GLs aren't crappy all of the time. In fact, they are better than a lasgun (the default weapon) ALL of the time, with the added benefit of being able to hurt AV10-11 in a pinch, if you need them to. I'll go back to my example, in my own army; I run PIS is Chimeras. There is absoloutely no value added to the unit if I give them a meltabomb as opposed to a GL. None. Zip. Nada. They won't be getting out, won't be moving huge distances and most definetely won't be charging vehicles. So where does the 'reasonable chance [of being] game-changing' come from?

Ailaros wrote:This is because 40k has a skill element to it. It's not just a matter of me taking a meltabomb and hoping my opponent drives next to it. Instead, I have control through movement and deployment. I can get weapons to where they need to be to get the job done.

As such, because I have some control over the circumstances, the chance that a weapon will do nothing whatsoever goes down. Furthermore, it goes down farther the better I get at using them. Eventually, through hard work, I can get a much better chance that a meltabomb will do something than merely 1 in 10.

See Nazdreg's comment as to how games of 40k have two players.

Ailaros wrote:Meanwhile, crappy weapons that are always crappy benefit little from skill and learning to play well on the field.

I completely and totally disagree. The best, most advanced weapon in the entire galaxy won't help you one jot if you don't know how to switch it on. A simple rock, however, is highly deadly in the hands of someone who is a master at the sling. Learning how to eke the most effectiveness out of your entire arsenal is paramount to becoming a better player, simply dismissing guns out of hand because they're not 5 point wonder weapons isn't.

L. Wrex

Heavy weapons teams get wiped out really fast, just go for a 30 man squad with 3 autocannons in, with FRF SRF orders it can cut down even heavy infantry quickly.

-Nazdreg- wrote: You mention your own mastery, but you seem to forget about the opponent.

Regardless of what weapons you choose to take, or what your skill level is, your opponent's skill level in any game is a constant. Taking better or worse weapons won't make your opponent better or worse.

Really, it's a question of if YOU are good with weapons, because your weapons have no bearing on what your opponent is good with.

-Nazdreg- wrote:And crappy mass shooting is statistically better than good elite shooting. You see this with Orks and BS5.

6 BS5 Rokkits are better than 3 BS4 Krak Missiles.

But we're not comparing ork rokkits to guard missile launchers. We're comparing guard taking crappy weapons to guard taking good ones.

Furthermore, I'd like to see more statistics, because when I run the numbers 2 meltaguns kills chimeras way deader than 4 GLs for the same price.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:How about stopping a 200+ point Space Marine squad from moving and/or shooting for a turn?

Can't they get out and run? How does blowing up a bawks stop their movement?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:I completely and totally disagree. The best, most advanced weapon in the entire galaxy won't help you one jot if you don't know how to switch it on.

Clearly some weapons require more skill than others. Are you really going to say that a lascannon HWS requires the same skill to use as a melta SWS?

It just so happens that the weapons which tend to require the most skill to use are also the ones that do the most damage when you learn to use them properly. With guard (and I'd say in general for 40k actually), "versatility" is little more than a crutch for people who lack coordination, and don't care to learn.

Ailaros wrote:Can't they get out and run? How does blowing up a bawks stop their movement?

Sure they can, except now they've left their mechanised protection behind (voluntarily if stunned, compulsary if not) and are now running towards you, on foot, into the teeth of your anti-MEQ firepower. I don't know about you, but if I was a SM player I wouldn't be too chuffed about the odds of that squad surviving.

Ailaros wrote:Clearly some weapons require more skill than others. Are you really going to say that a lascannon HWS requires the same skill to use as a melta SWS?

Deployment. Target priority. Orders. Yes, yes, I think I am saying exactly that. The only difference between the two is that my deployment is more important (perhaps requiring more skill due to the need to create fire lanes, clear LOS, advantageous positions etc) whilst you get a movement phase to re-deploy.

Ailaros wrote:It just so happens that the weapons which tend to require the most skill to use are also the ones that do the most damage when you learn to use them properly. With guard (and I'd say in general for 40k actually), "versatility" is little more than a crutch for people who lack coordination, and don't care to learn.

So your saying that every SM player out there (which, by the way, is a very versatile army) is simply a person who 'lacks co-ordination' and doesn't 'care to learn'? Versatile armies/guns are even HARDER to learn than the point-and-click variety. Everyone knows exactly how to use a meltagun; you run it at a tank and hope for the best. Not everyone knows how to play a Space Marine army effectively as there are a lot more thought processes involved in making the army perform to the best of its abiilties.

Just because something isn't so obvious in its application, it does not make it 'worse'.

l. Wrex

Ailaros wrote:
Can't they get out and run? How does blowing up a bawks stop their movement?

The effective movement of a squad disembarking from a mobile rhino is up to 14.9" = 12" of rhino movement (with rotation), 2" from hatch, 1" base. In addition, the squad that got out can fire that turn.


The effective movement of a squad disembarking from a stunned or immobilized rhino is, at most, the same. That's deceptive, because most rhinos move nose first, so they lose some of their movement disembarking from a further back access point. Running is also randomized, resulting in an average move of 6" of movement, +2" disembark, +.9" base size, -2" from access point to front of rhino, +3.5" average run = 10.4" on average.

So a stunned result slows them down, on average, 4.5". It also prevents the unit from shooting if they run.

Taking better or worse weapons won't make your opponent better or worse.

We dont talk about good or bad weapons, but about different kinds of weapons.
A meltagun gets 1 shot per game (perhaps even not a single shot at all). It needs some turns to get to a target, which is not sitting. After that it has to survive to get another shot.
Therefore this shot must be absolutely devastating or it is useless.
The grenade launcher I promise will fire 5-7 rounds per game if any target is present and if you have any knowledge about positioning (if not, its your advantage because you created a 30" zone of no opponents because of 20p spent in weapons...). So you get 5-7 chances to do something interesting.

Aside from that, a melta stunning a rhino is not important because you are already close.
A grenade launcher stunning arhino is very useful for you because you steal the opponent one turn of proper use with his unit. And this without much effort on your side.
(again compared to the melta which has to be brought to target despite enemy actions)

Furthermore, I'd like to see more statistics, because when I run the numbers 2 meltaguns kills chimeras way deader than 4 GLs for the same price.

OK lets compare 2 meltaguns with 4 GL against opposing guard infantry. Ah pointless? Yes. But no one shoots into chimera front with GL either if not desperate.
Rhinos should be the better comparison. Or we assume chimera side and we will see about the statistics...

But we're not comparing ork rokkits to guard missile launchers. We're comparing guard taking crappy weapons to guard taking good ones.

This was an example. GL shooting 5x compared to Meltaguns shooting once is the same story. GL have the possibility to to more damage due to more shooting.

Really, it's a question of if YOU are good with weapons, because your weapons have no bearing on what your opponent is good with.

If your opponent knows your weapon inside out (and meltaguns are used excessively lately) he does not care what you do with your weapon, he will predict it. Meltas are not that hard to defend. Especially footmeltas with 12" effective range. Just keep out of 12" and you are fine in most cases. And again once the melta shot, he will get the counter. So the melta must be on some mighty user. I assume a guardsman is not really mighty even if backed up by 20 others (I know you will tell me the contrary, but this will be pointless circling, I just claim people not knowing how to fight blobs properly, you claim you invented them and so on )

Clearly some weapons require more skill than others. Are you really going to say that a lascannon HWS requires the same skill to use as a melta SWS

Depending on the situation. A melta SWS sitting behind terrain at a decisive spot is not too hard to use. Going with 6 men through open ground is insanity, so where are the options? 1 stormbolter may be deadly.
Lascannon team has to sit in terrain, same as the melta SWS, the only difference is it has to be visible due to the nature of its weapon. So you must be even more careful about the position because you must target the enemy without the enemy targetting you. This is not very easy. Most players simply pt them in a position where they observe many spots. But seem to forget that many spots observe back...

So it all depends on opponent, terrain, your army composition, enemy army composition, mission and so on.

Comparing weapons to each other by comparing their damage potential they can offer if shooting one round is absolutely nonsense. (I dont mean this in an insulting manner, so please dont take this expression personally )

ChrisWWII wrote:They do cost almost nothing, but for those same 5 points I could take a vox caster instead which I view as a much better deal. I say 'they don't work' understanding it to mean 'it's not a viable tactic'. Or if I can find 5 extra points somewhere, I can take a heavy bolter or autocannon, all of which are superior to a Grenade Launcher.

Just because an upgrade is dirt cheap doesn't mean its an autotake.

but you have to spend MORE than 5 points for the Vox caster to work. if you just get one, it won't help your squad at all....

Interesting thread, now if it were real life a mortar combined with LC's would make complete sense, but this is 40K, real life tactics are trumped by rules.

Mortar's are completely underrated IMO, being only 60pts, with no LOS required and a 48" range is all awesome. Poor Strength is a downer, but the IG would be all powerful with better mortars.

AC's are good at many things, but not great at anything. Most Infantry fear them, light vehicles don't necessarily wander into their field of fire, but they have to remain immobile to be truly effective. Great for area denial, not great at much else.

LC's are awesome tank killers, but are definitely a niche weapon for the IG. Sure infantry die in scads if you're rolling to hit, but using them against anything but tanks, MC's or extra powerful independent characters is truly a waste of 20pts per gun.

Hvy Bolters are great against infantry and very light vehicles, really better when vehicle mounted though.

ML's are very versatile, good against most vehicles, decent agianst infantry, better when supplementing anti-infantry Hvy Weapons squads.

Special Weapon Squads are one of the greates units in the codex, the all sniper unit is really cool...until you use it in play. BS 3 Sniper bullets hurt quite a bit, if the old rules for snipers still applied, this unit would be in almost every IG army.

An all melta SWS is great to have jump out of Valkyrie and blow up stuff, then foot slogging to another target of opportunity. Demo charges are awesome as long as they are on target, Hvy Flamers are great man portable, infantry slaughtering toys, but also pricey at 20 pts. The regular flamer is great when used in conjunction with GL's or melta's, what the melta can't clear out of cover, the flamer takes care of.