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.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

Here we go. I made the comparison with the weapons themselves not taking into account the price of the platform since they differ too much, but I compared the heavy bolter and the mortar in this manner too.
Although the twin gatling cannon is impressive, remember that the price of a vulture and its weapon is 280% more expensive than its weapon alone (+112pts for a 40pts weapon), while a HWT with mortar is 80% more expensive than its weapon alone (+4pts for a 5pts weapon). Yet the punisher gatling cannon is not 3.5 times better than the mortar. As for survivability, remember that for the price of a vulture, you can have 17 mortars (in cover or out of line of sight), which means 34 wounds.

Conclusions
Against guardsmen (or dark eldar infantry), take the mortar. Otherwise, take the heavy bolter. For tougher targets, take something else, like a lascannon.
The wyvern and the heavy quad launcher are not good.

Ok so a couple things here. I am taking issue with your conclusions on the basis of math. I don't doubt that your math is technically correct but there's a little bit of what is known as "lying with statistics" going on here. Basically, it's the idea that based on how you read/interpret data, you can draw poor conclusions. For example, if I were to show you a graph of ice cream sales vs shark attacks, and data for each of the points was taken in sequential months, you would clearly see that as ice cream sales increase, so do shark attacks. Are sharks attracted to ice cream? Do shark attacks cause more people to flock to the beach, thus causing more ice cream to be sold? Obviously neither of these things are true - there is an underlying cause (which month the data was taken in - if more people are at the beach, more ice cream will be sold AND more shark attacks will happen, but the two things are not inherently related to each other)

Now, I'm not saying that's what you're doing - it's just my favorite causal error anecdote. What you are failing to do is take into account a few things:

1) the cost per shot NEEDS to be the actual cost of the gun AND the platform. My hierophant has this awesome 0 point dire cannon, but he's an 1800 point platform that I can't leave home without.

2) saying that the offensive output is the only thing that matters is also only true if the relative durability of the platform is equal. Take the worst offenders - the heavy weapons teams. Regular bolter shots will wound them on 3's, and then they take 5+ saves. What this means is that 100 bolter shots from say, marines will hit 66 times, wound 44 times and do 29 wounds to those heavy weapons teams (let's ignore for a moment the fact that they're in different squads, as the bolters likely are too and all models effectively have split fire now anyhow). Compare that to a Vulture (my personal favorite). Those same bolters will only hit 50 times, wound 16 times and do 5 wounds of damage (also not even putting a dent in the output in the firepower of the Vulture in this specific example).

So I'm going to do a quick new analysis - cost per wound caused (pre-saving throw) for the best 5 choices IMO:

1) Taurox Prime
2) Vulture
3) Wyvern
4) Heavy Quad Launcher Battery
5) Mortars

The last thing we need to consider is durability. Which platform can take the biggest beating and still keep shooting?

I'll rank the platforms from most durable to least durable:

1) Vulture (-1 to hit)
2) Wyvern
3) Taurox Prime
4) Heavy Quad Launcher
32) Heavy Weapons Team

Clearly the HWT are the worst at durability, not only because they die if you look at them sideways, but as they take casualties, they much more rapidly will deteriorate than any other option. Being able to shoot from out of LOS helps the HWT and Wyvern be a little more durable, but if you want to put out the same volume of fire as the Vulture, for example, there's not enough BLOS terrain in the world to hide all of those HWTs.

The Wyvern has another thing going for it that is sort of an X factor that the Vulture and the Prime do not, which is that the Sabre Defense searchlights will work for it, greatly increasing its hit efficiency. This is of course true for the Quad Launcher and the HWTs as well, but the quad launcher is pretty much just strictly worse than the Wyvern in every way, and the HWTs are very inefficient at using the searchlights because their squad size is so small. A single searchlight buffs 3x as many points of Wyvern as it does the HWTs, so another point for the Wyvern.

At this point, we can now draw the following conclusion: the difference between a Taurox and a Vulture is slightly in favor of the Taurox for raw offensive power, but IMO the Vulture is a better option due to its increase in durability over the Prime.

The best option with searchlights is hands down the Wyvern (2 searchlights have this thing hitting on 2's, putting its efficiency numbers into the stratosphere). My only concern is the variability with random numbers of shots. Having a set 40 from the vulture or a set 31 from the prime is nice. Also, the Wyvern's efficiency numbers go down slightly if they're actually doing their job and hiding out of LOS and out of 36" (I gave them the heavy bolter shots in my calculations).

And finally, the only other thing to consider: slot efficiency. Kill points are still a thing (hi everyone who really wants to bring 12 squads of HWTs). The vulture is #1 at that, followed by the Prime and then the Wyvern.

I don't think you can go wrong with either a Prime, a Vulture or a Wyvern. But to me, HWTs are a clear trap unit. I'm not saying having a few hiding out of LOS is a bad idea, but relying on them to be your whole anti horde strategy is not a good one IMO.

My calculations:

 vonjankmon wrote:


You forgot the scenario of using the re-roll to hit order for plasma, in which case it becomes brilliant as you are not cooking your guardsmen as often while using the more powerful plasma profile. Also the math on a 30 point unit (the commander) is really not as straight forward as you present it. If an extra lascannon hit/wound is the difference between a close combat monster making it into your line or not while with strict math hammer the commander isn't worth it, that 30 points may have just literally saved you the game. Math hammer works well high point values, whether a single high costed model/unit or when dealing with entire armies but it doesn't scale as well to cheap units that provide support to the greater army.

Concerning the lascannon scenario, you can buy 1.25 lascannon for that price. A commander giving re-roll 1s on 6 lascannons is equivalent to 1.00 lascannon. Not worth it in my book. But then, as Doctoralex said, you need HQs anyway. I would go for model like Harker that can affect more models with that bonus. To make its point back, Harder has to be within 6'' of 300pts of units shooting, which is not too difficult in an AM army.

Let's consider 6 plasmas in 2x6 squads of Elysian SWT at 102pts (deep strike, bs4+, 5pts base before upgrades). I prefer to use them since they don't have de 1:1 restriction of Tempestus command Squad with the Prime.
The price of a company commander combo would be 102+30 = 132, which makes the squad 29,5% more expensive. (I deduce from the commander's price its own shooting contribution to the table and its morale bonus. He costs 40pts, let's say he's 30 like a regular AM one.)
What brings the company commander? He prevents the squad of losing 16,7% of its effectiveness each turn, though even with him you still have a 2,8% chance of overheating (so let's say he gives a 14% bonus).

The unit arrives and shoots with the commander: you have the reroll bonus of 8,3% (bs4).
Next turn, if everyone survives, you have a bonus of 14% in effectiveness (the survivor) + the regular 8,3%, which is a total of 22,3%.
At the moment, the benefit of the commander is an average of 15,3% in effectiveness (8,3% + 22,3% / 2 turns). But he made the squads 29,5% more expensive.
Maybe after five turns of shooting, the commander will have made its point back, but let's be honest : if you manage to shoot two turns, you are already lucky.

When I read your comment, I thought you had a point, but in the end, it's just better to buy more plasma guns than to buy commanders to help the squads you already have. (It's even worse when you take into account the lasguns of the above scenario, since they do not get the 14% bonus at all).

luke1705 covered my point in a significantly more detailed fashion but you're totally leaving my last point unaddressed. "Math hammer works well high point values, whether a single high costed model/unit or when dealing with entire armies but it doesn't scale as well to cheap units that provide support to the greater army." HWT and SWT are frankly terrible in this edition, if you are playing an opponent that has any idea what they are doing those units will have a single turn at best of shooting. In addition the Commander is providing a lot more than just rerolls of 1's, he has a bunch of other orders that allow for significant flexibility for 30 points. Both points that your very accurate but very short sighted math hammer fail to address. I'm losing multiple 10 wound infantry units a turn in 8th edition, a 6 wound unit with no wound or few wound buffers before losing your heavy or speacial weapons is a joke now, all units having split fire has changed the game significantly.

 vonjankmon wrote:

luke1705 covered my point in a significantly more detailed fashion but you're totally leaving my last point unaddressed. "Math hammer works well high point values, whether a single high costed model/unit or when dealing with entire armies but it doesn't scale as well to cheap units that provide support to the greater army." HWT and SWT are frankly terrible in this edition, if you are playing an opponent that has any idea what they are doing those units will have a single turn at best of shooting. In addition the Commander is providing a lot more than just rerolls of 1's, he has a bunch of other orders that allow for significant flexibility for 30 points. Both points that your very accurate but very short sighted math hammer fail to address. I'm losing multiple 10 wound infantry units a turn in 8th edition, a 6 wound unit with no wound or few wound buffers before losing your heavy or speacial weapons is a joke now, all units having split fire has changed the game significantly.

I agree in part - in that this method is rather misleading and doesn't give the whole picture.

However, I disagree about HWTs being bad. They're a source of heavy weapons in troop slots that are then protected by 9 guardsmen and a surplus wound, and which can benefit from Orders. What's more, with the new rules, they can move and still hit on 5s (not ideal but still twice as good as last edition when they needed 6s).

In terms of HWSs, they're a lot more vulnerable but also allow you to fill out Heavy Support slots in a Brigade for a tiny price (just 36pts for a squad of 3 with Heavy Bolters). I think the key is just to keep them cheap with HBs or Mortars (so that they're not a great loss if killed). If you use Mortars, you might well be able to hide at least some of them out of LoS - allowing them to rain down shells with relative impunity.

I think SWSs would be okay if they were troops. As Elites, you're probably better off with Veterans or Scions. You can put two of them in a Chimera, so there's that. I guess you could also try taking a pile of them with cheap weapons (almost certainly not ideal, but may at least be playable).

I'm trying to figure out how to read the dang chart. There's the weapon, there's the target, there's a number of some kind on the chart ... but what does that number represent? Are higher numbers better or lower? What do the color differences mean?

I need a guide to the thing before it'll make sense.

One other thing worth mentioning - people who like HWTs (or even Wyverns) are relying on having BLOS terrain to maximize their durability, while also probably needing to bubble wrap those units. And what are you taking to kill tanks? Earthshaker cannons? Manticores? Both great options but they want BLOS terrain also. I mean, if there's a giant LOS blocking wall in the middile of the battlefield, great. You auto win. But on most tables, not nearly as much stuff as you'd probably like to hide out of LOS is actually going to be able to

 luke1705 wrote:
One other thing worth mentioning - people who like HWTs (or even Wyverns) are relying on having BLOS terrain to maximize their durability, while also probably needing to bubble wrap those units. And what are you taking to kill tanks? Earthshaker cannons? Manticores? Both great options but they want BLOS terrain also. I mean, if there's a giant LOS blocking wall in the middile of the battlefield, great. You auto win. But on most tables, not nearly as much stuff as you'd probably like to hide out of LOS is actually going to be able to

Yeah, that's a good point - IG can potentially have quite a few units competing for LoS-blocking terrain.

Honestly, this is the sort of thing I'm liable to forget because I play Infantry-IG (sometimes with a few sentinels thrown in because they're the only FA choice I own), so those Mortar-HWSs would literally be the only units in my army that actually needed LoS-blocking terrain. And at the moment I prefer HBs anyway.

 vipoid wrote:

 vonjankmon wrote:

luke1705 covered my point in a significantly more detailed fashion but you're totally leaving my last point unaddressed. "Math hammer works well high point values, whether a single high costed model/unit or when dealing with entire armies but it doesn't scale as well to cheap units that provide support to the greater army." HWT and SWT are frankly terrible in this edition, if you are playing an opponent that has any idea what they are doing those units will have a single turn at best of shooting. In addition the Commander is providing a lot more than just rerolls of 1's, he has a bunch of other orders that allow for significant flexibility for 30 points. Both points that your very accurate but very short sighted math hammer fail to address. I'm losing multiple 10 wound infantry units a turn in 8th edition, a 6 wound unit with no wound or few wound buffers before losing your heavy or speacial weapons is a joke now, all units having split fire has changed the game significantly.

I agree in part - in that this method is rather misleading and doesn't give the whole picture.

However, I disagree about HWTs being bad. They're a source of heavy weapons in troop slots that are then protected by 9 guardsmen and a surplus wound, and which can benefit from Orders. What's more, with the new rules, they can move and still hit on 5s (not ideal but still twice as good as last edition when they needed 6s).

In terms of HWSs, they're a lot more vulnerable but also allow you to fill out Heavy Support slots in a Brigade for a tiny price (just 36pts for a squad of 3 with Heavy Bolters). I think the key is just to keep them cheap with HBs or Mortars (so that they're not a great loss if killed). If you use Mortars, you might well be able to hide at least some of them out of LoS - allowing them to rain down shells with relative impunity.

I think SWSs would be okay if they were troops. As Elites, you're probably better off with Veterans or Scions. You can put two of them in a Chimera, so there's that. I guess you could also try taking a pile of them with cheap weapons (almost certainly not ideal, but may at least be playable).

Sorry, need to get my acrynoms corrected for this edition. Heavy Weapon Squads (HWS) I do not think are very good, my earlier use of terrible may have been a bit much but I'm not sure. Normal Infantry squads with a heavy weapon are excellent, like you said 9 ablative wounds is fantastic and really a requirement in this edition. I think there may be some argument to be made for HWS with mortars but I would prefer to use the bit of LOS blocking terrain I have on Basilisks, Manticores, and Wyverns rather than a HWS. The mortars and heavy bolters are so cheap though that if you need to use up some extra points you have available they are likely your best option on that front.

I agree with you about the Special Weapon Squads (SWS) a 10 (or 5) man squad of Scions with 4 (or 2) plasma guns are a much better choice, in the same category and are able to deep strike to arrive where you need them without the use of an expensive Chimera.

 vonjankmon wrote:

Sorry, need to get my acrynoms corrected for this edition. Heavy Weapon Squads (HWS) I do not think are very good, my earlier use of terrible may have been a bit much but I'm not sure. Normal Infantry squads with a heavy weapon are excellent, like you said 9 ablative wounds is fantastic and really a requirement in this edition. I think there may be some argument to be made for HWS with mortars but I would prefer to use the bit of LOS blocking terrain I have on Basilisks, Manticores, and Wyverns rather than a HWS. The mortars and heavy bolters are so cheap though that if you need to use up some extra points you have available they are likely your best option on that front.

Yeah, I think HWSs are good as cheap slot-fillers (especially if, like me, you want to play a list that's made up almost entirely of infantry). However, I wouldn't want to take anything more expensive than a Heavy Bolter. Nor would I count on them sticking around for the whole game. Hell, Mortars might prefer to be behind LoS-blocking terrain, but for 27pts you can probably use them as bubble-wrap.

 vonjankmon wrote:

I agree with you about the Special Weapon Squads (SWS) a 10 (or 5) man squad of Scions with 4 (or 2) plasma guns are a much better choice, in the same category and are able to deep strike to arrive where you need them without the use of an expensive Chimera.

I think SWSs really should have been troops. They'd still have suffered from most of the same problems, but at least the comparison might not have been so one-sided.

 vipoid wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:
One other thing worth mentioning - people who like HWTs (or even Wyverns) are relying on having BLOS terrain to maximize their durability, while also probably needing to bubble wrap those units. And what are you taking to kill tanks? Earthshaker cannons? Manticores? Both great options but they want BLOS terrain also. I mean, if there's a giant LOS blocking wall in the middile of the battlefield, great. You auto win. But on most tables, not nearly as much stuff as you'd probably like to hide out of LOS is actually going to be able to

Yeah, that's a good point - IG can potentially have quite a few units competing for LoS-blocking terrain.

Honestly, this is the sort of thing I'm liable to forget because I play Infantry-IG (sometimes with a few sentinels thrown in because they're the only FA choice I own), so those Mortar-HWSs would literally be the only units in my army that actually needed LoS-blocking terrain. And at the moment I prefer HBs anyway.

Speaking as an IG player who loves his LOS blocking terrain - BYO, then you can plan around it instead of hoping the board has what you need etc.

I bring a Fortress of Redemption and that can block quite a lot of LOS --- especially to HWT bases such as Mortars etc.

And that's a fine plan, but the fortress is how many points? Add that into the effective cost of your units. I doubt your opponent is just going to let you set up a fortress as a normal terrain piece in the middle of the board/your deployment zone otherwise.

But if he is, more power to you. I wouldn't want to take such a huge advantage consistently, but that's just me. I always prepare for the worst and hope for the best with Terrain (played 7th ed Tyranids so yeah lol)

 luke1705 wrote:
And that's a fine plan, but the fortress is how many points? Add that into the effective cost of your units. I doubt your opponent is just going to let you set up a fortress as a normal terrain piece in the middle of the board/your deployment zone otherwise.

But if he is, more power to you. I wouldn't want to take such a huge advantage consistently, but that's just me. I always prepare for the worst and hope for the best with Terrain (played 7th ed Tyranids so yeah lol)

Okay, cough, the Fortress is pricey, cough, cough. xD

I take it in my list, so opponent shouldn't have a problem with it --- it's not like I'm just plonking it on the table as a terrain piece and taking the bonuses for free

It has its drawbacks, RE: Cost as you say, so I believe that balances the consistent advantage it provides for me.

Oh no I totally agree with that. If you're paying points for it to be in your army, go for it! I think that using a structure like that just makes the HWTs less efficient per point because I view the Fortress as a necessary part of the HWT strategy. Don't leave home with one and not the other

Bloody hell did they really need to nerf my Heavy Quad Launchers this much? They were a bit too good before, but right now? It seems almost silly.

I think HWSs can be competitive when out in the open - I'm planning on using teams of two mortars and a lascannon to mix higher durability in with the lascannons damage output. They might die fairly quickly, but when you can get twelve squads for 500pts I'm not too concerned. Particularly of the enemy can't bring their small arms into range due to a conscript wall.

Whats our best option in dealing with Storm-ravens and other similar fliers?

Heavy artillery comparison added.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Concerning the whole HWT debate, I just want to remind you that this a weapon comparison thread. Obviously we need to take into account other factors like those well presented by luke1705 (though I don't support any of its arguments in favor of the wyvern). Concerning the Vulture, I admit it's a good unit, but the lack of Ap is a concern for me. If it was Ap -1, I would play it. In general, though, I don't like vehicle. I thought they were too fragile in 7th edition, now I think they are too expensive. The Manticore is worth it, though.

My personal conclusion when I compare all charts is not to play HWT, but to play Tarantulas. It is by far the best unit here with its T5 W5. The SM assault cannon version stands out since it doesn't have to shoot the nearest unit, but even with this restriction the lascannon version is amazing. The fact that enemy units within 1'' of them doesn't count as being within 1'' of them for the purpose of shooting is priceless as you can make a wall of them; when charged, many will survive and you are able to shoot everyone in your turn. (@Khadorstompy : lascannons with some re-rolls or +1bs is our best weapon to deal with Stormraven imo. The SR will meet the nerf bat soon...)

So far, my ''math'' conclusions served me well. I used the best units from the charts, avoiding in particular autocannons, wyverns and quad launchers (and HWT since they are not spectacular at all). Warning my opponents beforehand that I'd bring a competitive list, I tabled them all by turn 3 each time. (I used 9 twin lascannon tarantulas, 2 or 3 earthshaker batteries, 2 or 3 medusa batteries, Elysian plasma SWT, 3 defence searhlights and 40 or 60 conscripts... and 3 or 6 cyclops demolition vehicles, the best 8th edition unit imo). Sure, I have many easy kill points waiting for my opponent, but there's only two missions with KP, if I record correctly, and one of them is for heavy support choices only (my tarantulas I'll play as SM fast attack choices in tournament). When you table your opponent, it doesn't matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wakshaani wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how to read the dang chart. There's the weapon, there's the target, there's a number of some kind on the chart ... but what does that number represent? Are higher numbers better or lower? What do the color differences mean?
I need a guide to the thing before it'll make sense.

The number indicated is the point investment necessary to wound a model. For example, you need 4.5 points worth of flamer to wound a guardsman while you need 21.6 pts worth of autocannon to do the same. (Damage output is irrelevant when not factoring the weapon price.) A lowest number is better. It means you can to the same thing (i.e. wound a model) with less points.
There's a chart for colours in the OP.

Has anyone run the numbers for comparing a HSVG and a Plasma gun in a Scion's hands?

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

Concerning the whole HWT debate, I just want to remind you that this a weapon comparison thread. Obviously we need to take into account other factors like those well presented by luke1705 (though I don't support any of its arguments in favor of the wyvern). Concerning the Vulture, I admit it's a good unit, but the lack of Ap is a concern for me. If it was Ap -1, I would play it. In general, though, I don't like vehicle. I thought they were too fragile in 7th edition, now I think they are too expensive. The Manticore is worth it, though.

My personal conclusion when I compare all charts is not to play HWT, but to play Tarantulas. It is by far the best unit here with its T5 W5.

I agree that a little AP on the Vulture would be nice, but most of it's intended targets have pretty bad armor saves. Force enough rolls and you'll kill things. Wouldn't recommend shooting terminators with it though.

Vehicles are a little expensive, but their durability is a lot more than that of the Tarantula. I'm curious as to why you prefer it over a vehicle like the manticore?

Also curious as to why you don't like the Wyvern? My only point was that with searchlight support, it's very very efficient, which isn't something that the Taurox prime or Vulture can benefit from

 luke1705 wrote:
which isn't something that the Taurox prime or Vulture can benefit from

Why can't they benefit from it?

On average, the wyvern will kill 1.75 marine per turn. It's about 25pts. It means it will make its point back only after four (!) turns of shooting. It's mediocre, don't you think?

The tarantulas are easy to spam and have a tactical advantage against charging units. I make a wall of tarantulas behind a wall conscripts. Behind all that, I have my artillery. No one can reach it since they can't go through the two walls. The base cost of a tarantula is 10pts, can you imagine? 10 points for T5 W5 Sv4+.

I have a picture of the deployment I used to thwart the charging units of my opponent. I choose the ''diagonal'' deployment. I put cyclops demolition vehicles on my deployment line (here represented by thuddguns). 7'' behind them, I made a line of conscripts, then a line of tarantulas, then I put the rest of my army. The cyclops are very annoying for my opponent since he must deploy at 9'' away from them (so at 16'' from the rest of my army behind), and he has to shoot them. He can't ignore them. Their damage output is too strong. One of my other opponents ignored them. One cyclops vehicle killed an entire squad of terminators, Calgar and Guilliman...
So he must kill them first turn, in fact shoot at them, because he don't want them to explode in close combat with its own units nearby. If they explode (which they do on a 3+), be it in the shooting phase or the assault phase, my army at 7'' behind is safe.
You can see that I dictate which units my opponent must shoot first turn. The rest of my army is safe from shooting and charges. I also play defence searchlights, another priority target I impose on my opponent.

If he ever reach the tarantulas, most presumably with a pile-in move or a consolidate move after having charged the conscripts, I can still shoot them because of the immobile artillery rules. It means I have at least 3 turns of shooting before my artillery behind even begin to be in danger (here I had 4 medusas and 2 earthshakers batteries). In 3 turns of shooting, I can destroy almost any army.

This is slightly offtopic, but I find it quite funny that you guys want the Vulture to be buffed when the concencus in this thread is that it is in fact quite OP.

My friend use the Vulture and I played against it. Nothing there outstanding.
It will kill with its main weapon 6.6 guardsmen in cover (worst scenario) or 11.4 guardsmen outside of cover and at bs3+ if immobile (best scenario). Imagine against marine in cover? In fact, you don't have to imagine it, I'll tell you : at bs4 it kills 2.2 marines in cover, a stunning 28.6 pts of marines. That's why I won't play that unit.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:
which isn't something that the Taurox prime or Vulture can benefit from

Why can't they benefit from it?

On average, the wyvern will kill 1.75 marine per turn. It's about 25pts. It means it will make its point back only after four (!) turns of shooting. It's mediocre, don't you think?

The tarantulas are easy to spam and have a tactical advantage against charging units. I make a wall of tarantulas behind a wall conscripts. Behind all that, I have my artillery. No one can reach it since they can't go through the two walls. The base cost of a tarantula is 10pts, can you imagine? 10 points for T5 W5 Sv4+.

I have a picture of the deployment I used to thwart the charging units of my opponent. I choose the ''diagonal'' deployment. I put cyclops demolition vehicles on my deployment line (here represented by thuddguns). 7'' behind them, I made a line of conscripts, then a line of tarantulas, then I put the rest of my army. The cyclops are very annoying for my opponent since he must deploy at 9'' away from them (so at 16'' from the rest of my army behind), and he has to shoot them. He can't ignore them. Their damage output is too strong. One of my other opponents ignored them. One cyclops vehicle killed an entire squad of terminators, Calgar and Guilliman...
So he must kill them first turn, in fact shoot at them, because he don't want them to explode in close combat with its own units nearby. If they explode (which they do on a 3+), be it in the shooting phase or the assault phase, my army at 7'' behind is safe.
You can see that I dictate which units my opponent must shoot first turn. The rest of my army is safe from shooting and charges. I also play defence searchlights, another priority target I impose on my opponent.

If he ever reach the tarantulas, most presumably with a pile-in move or a consolidate move after having charged the conscripts, I can still shoot them because of the immobile artillery rules. It means I have at least 3 turns of shooting before my artillery behind even begin to be in danger (here I had 4 medusas and 2 earthshakers batteries). In 3 turns of shooting, I can destroy almost any army.

Nice strategic gunline leaf blower .... however how are you getting objectives? Relying on a handful of Elysian SWTs? Even with all that firepower you should run into issues with something like brimstone horrror spam and lose by objectives. It will be obscenely difficult for you to keep in your corner and do enough damage to a unit outside of frfsrf range and that costs 2ppm with 4++ and -1 to hit from changling?

I guess brimstone horrors are a concern, as for everyone.
But yes, I rely only on three units of Elysian SWT for objective grabbing.
Don't forget that in Eternal war missions, you get to pick you side of the table half of the time, placing the objectives while knowing that.
My list do very well against any elite army. Against horde, I'd need the twin assault cannon tarantulas deployed at the front of my zone.
I flirt with the idea of allying with GSC. The new point cost of purestrain genestealers (even if it gets nerfed to 12pts instead of 10pts, as in the Tyranid codex) is ridiculously low for a unit that has so many rending attacks.

Wait, do Space Marines get assault cannon tarantulas or something? Because the AM tarantulas can only take twin heavy bolters, or twin lascannons.

Edit: Ah, going back earlier it is mentioned as an SM unit at one point. Yeah, a twin assault cannon on a 10 point platform is pretty terrifying.

 ross-128 wrote:
Wait, do Space Marines get assault cannon tarantulas or something? Because the AM tarantulas can only take twin heavy bolters, or twin lascannons.

Yes they have more options (marines get all the toys).

Multi-melta
Assault Cannon
Hyperios (AA)

 Otto Weston wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Wait, do Space Marines get assault cannon tarantulas or something? Because the AM tarantulas can only take twin heavy bolters, or twin lascannons.

Yes they have more options (marines get all the toys).

Multi-melta
Assault Cannon
Hyperios (AA)

I see we posted at the same time.

But yeah. I'm a biiiiit jealous there.

 RenegadeKorps wrote:
I guess brimstone horrors are a concern, as for everyone.
But yes, I rely only on three units of Elysian SWT for objective grabbing.
Don't forget that in Eternal war missions, you get to pick you side of the table half of the time, placing the objectives while knowing that.
My list do very well against any elite army. Against horde, I'd need the twin assault cannon tarantulas deployed at the front of my zone.
I flirt with the idea of allying with GSC. The new point cost of purestrain genestealers (even if it gets nerfed to 12pts instead of 10pts, as in the Tyranid codex) is ridiculously low for a unit that has so many rending attacks. But again, some maths need to be done. I tend to see close combat attacks as shooting attacks that ignore cover and have 1'' range.

It's a nice list and setup. But you cornered yourself pretty good and hordes are going to be popular and eventually tournaments will go back to layered missions. Things like stormraven spam (which is also decent vs this list) will die down a bit as those players start placing more units on the board but Brimstone spam isn't going anywhere, guilliman rerolling blobs of death will be just as popular, and I think fw artlliery spam, w conscripts and stealers will be popular. Yynari wil compete a little. And all those lists are extremely mobile and durable enough to win by objectives.

Depending on the list you face the other player should go first. Take out any demolitions that are to close, take out the searchlights, keep out of frfsrf range and try to take out any artilery from afar first turn. Then weather any earthshaker/lascannon hits as they try to claim objectives. It's not worth assaulting your list unless i know i can survive your shooting or block your conscripts fallback move. I think stealers are the way to go and keep the lascannons for anti air. Heck you can probably drop the conscripts for stealers and do better.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 Saber wrote:
I'm not sold on the 'always take more men' conclusion - even though I usually try to do just that!

At some point you run out of space on the board, especially if terrain is dense, and you can't concentrate all of your units in one area. That's when you want a Commander to give you rerolls and get maximum use out of the units that you can employ. Adding more men isn't efficient in that situation because they won't be able to engage optimal targets, and possibly won't be able to engage anything at all. It helps to have a few 'elite' (as elite as Guard can be!) units that pay a premium price to concentrate combat power on a narrow frontage.

I agree, and I think the Combat Engineers are the cream of the crop when it comes to concentrating firepower. Load them in a dual HF Chimera and you have a ton of concentrated damage potential. Give them two meltas and they can engage any target.

 vipoid wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Great thread, thank you. Sadly this is what I suspected that the Wyvern just was not worth it anymore compared to units that fulfill a similar role. I was mentally comparing it just to simple lasguns and thinking, why would I pay for a Wyvern when I can FRFSRF?

Because a Wyvern can fire at enemies 48" away from behind LoS-blocking cover?

Well yes, but as Basilisks and Manticores are almost an auto include for me, and a big horde that will be a good target for the Wyvern's 4d6 probably wont be out of LoS.

Wyverns don't have to be firing at hordes the whole time. A more elite army like marines will possibly have scouts hiding out of sight to grab objectives. Now for a 5 man scout squad would you rather fire that wyvern at them or the basilisk/manticore...or fire the basilisk/manticore at a vehicle/monstrous creature or some other big scary target....?

 RenegadeKorps wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:
which isn't something that the Taurox prime or Vulture can benefit from

Why can't they benefit from it?

The Prime because your regiment can't be Tempestus

The Vulture because your regiment can't be Aeronautica Imperialis

The Vulture is a little contentious but the intent is clear. They FAQ'd that the other two "things that might have been able to be regiments (Militarum Auxilia and I forget the other one) cannot be taken as regiments because they are not actual regiments. The same line of logic applies to Aeronautica Imperialis. Now RAW, right now you can say "it doesn't say that I can't do it" but it feels very "That Guy" to me.

Your gunline is a list that tries to table your opponent with shooting, but a unit that has a good amount of shooting and assault can clear out your chaff units turn 1 and assault in turn 1. Just ask my Genestealers that are allied with the very guns that you're using to great effect..