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.

Seing that warriors can't get 2 lances while on foot, the trueborn can.

Is it worth taking 5 or them and give them 2 lances witch can shoot 32? All for 110 points. 170 for an adisional darklance (pasanger boat.)

A lott of things became better in the DA codex but the laser spam was toned down. I still think it is an exelent strategy, complementeried by other fast moving units and then some melle for the finish.

But is using an elite slot and 110 points worth 2 lance shots? I am here asuming that you will out your heavy suport on gunboats with dark lances. The alternative would be the 4 trueborn, 4 shredders in a Venom for 163 but as we all know you cant drive and shoot so good.

The wya I see it 15 darklance shots for 630 is not a bad prince. And 11 of them can drive and shoot.

I don't think lance spam is the way to go. The points increase and restrictions on dark lances and blasters have hampered their effectivessness. While on paper they still look like a decent build, in the game they don't match up well with armies that utilize the same strategy better...like IG.

Of course, this is my opinion, your mileage may vary.

my instinct is that it would be fine.... but its too early to tell. try it. I think that scourges might be a better platform just because shooting 2 anti tank weapons is rarely a gaurunteed kill.... which is what you want when you're shooting heavy weapons. 1 shot 1 kill. having to shoot something twice is just... inefficient. I think heat lances are going to be stronger than dark lances. its the strongest anti tank weapon yet seen in 40k, imo.

AbaddonFidelis wrote: I think heat lances are going to be stronger than dark lances. its the strongest anti tank weapon yet seen in 40k, imo.

/yawn. Heat lances are worse than multimeltas versus av 10-11, and equal on 12-14 in terms of chances to pen. They have less range. They are not the strongest anti-tank weapon in 40k, the multimelta is better. That isn't even as good as the railgun imo, but that might be debatable.

the multi melta is a heavy weapon except on certain mounts. I dont have my DE codex in front of me but IIRC the heat lance is an assault weapon. anyway combining lance, melta, and ap1 on a single gun is unprecedented. str 6 doesnt make much of a difference when you're rolling 2d6 armor penetration. except vs armor 13 or 14. taken care of by the lance rule. its hard not to like this gun.

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote: I think heat lances are going to be stronger than dark lances. its the strongest anti tank weapon yet seen in 40k, imo.

/yawn. Heat lances are worse than multimeltas versus av 10-11, and equal on 12-14 in terms of chances to pen. They have less range. They are not the strongest anti-tank weapon in 40k, the multimelta is better. That isn't even as good as the railgun imo, but that might be debatable.

Actually, the Heat Lance is just plain worse. Except against AV 14, where it's tied.

I put my cents on the blasters. Assault weapons are better than heavy weapons and trueborn can have 4 of them inside a venom. I think this is going to be a nice anti tank choice.

Edit lol Minmax that's what I had, then I edited it to say what it says now... I don't remember what made me think I was wrong...

heat lances worse than dark lances....? you give up 2 points of strength in order to get an extra die of penetration. 1 in 6 chance it will come out less, 1 in 6 chance it will come out even, 4 in 6 chance it will come out better. you really wouldnt take those odds?

Except its only better if you are inside 9". The 18" range of the blaster is pretty worthwhile. DE units don't last long in rapid fire range.

combined arms is the magic thing...

use blasters to open vehicles and charge in with wyches or any kind of cc unit and your blasters will be safe.

Dracos wrote:Except its only better if you are inside 9". The 18" range of the blaster is pretty worthwhile. DE units don't last long in rapid fire range.

errr.... you know DE are a close combat army right? why would the short range be an issue?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
especially when you have open topped vehicles....? move up 12", deploy, frag the transport, charge the contents.

Lets see, you can get heat lances on 2 units, reavers and scourges. Neither of which are CC units. Thank you, come again!

like I said I dont have the book in front of me. If its availability is so restricted do you think that might be because its... errrr.... good? I like how you keep changing your point though. first its worse than a dark lance. whoops math doesnt bear me out let me think of something new. its too short ranged. woops its a close combat army that was dumb lets try again. oh you can only take it on these two units. woops that means its probably a worthwhile gun. cant imagine what you'll think up next. are you ever not wrong, btw?

Where did I say it was worse than a darklance? Can you quote me please?

You said it was the best anti-vehicle weapon in the game, I demonstrated that the multimelta is still better.

Later I argued that the blaster is overall a better choice than the heat lance as well due to range considerations on the delivery methods.

Maybe you should stop discussing things you know nothing about. If you had the codex in front of you like I do now you might have something to offer to a discussion on DE. As for now, you clearly just don't know what you're talking about.

I own the codex. what I dont do is pull it out every time you offer an unsolicited opinion. you're pretty much always wrong so why bother? take this discussion for instance. you think str 8 ap 2 lance is better than str 6 ap 1 lance melta. now I dont need to look at the codex to know that you're wrong, since you always are, but just to humor you I did and I was not disappointed. a little basic math would have saved you the embarrassment you so richly deserve, but since you couldnt be bothered I did it for you. somehow you managed to miss that too, hence our ongoing conversation. why dont you take a deep breath, relaxe, realize what a really outstanding person you are, and not post anything else. sound good?

Sure, a heat lance is better than a dark lance. But only within 9 inches.

I think the point Dracos was making was that the heat lance is unique to only a select few delivery systems, and this perticular weapon is only as good as its ability to be delivered, and survive. The former is difficult to achieve outside of turbo boosting Reavers. The latter is a strategic nightmare, as it forces you to make hard decisions between sacrificing your delivery unit versus dedicating close combat support to assaulting the occupants... assuming you pop the target transport.

well you could lose your delivery platform. thats always the risk with close range anti tank weapons. multi meltas (on vehicles) and blasters have the same problem. my argument is that the stats for the heat lance (str 6 ap 1 assault 1 lance melta) are stronger than those of the multi melta (str 8 ap 1 heavy 1 melta) or the blaster (str 8 ap 2 assault 1 lance). whether a land speeder carrying a multi melta is better than a squad of reavers carrying a heat lance is another discussion. if the multi melta can move and shoot its stronger in some situations and as strong in others. if it cant then the heat lance is stronger all the time. but its the stats of the gun itself rather than the issues with delivering it that I'm arguing from.
as far as delivering it goes, yes, there are some issues.

AbaddonFidelis, could you please not type out a block of text, and maybe flamebait less? It's a pain to read.

There is another convenient Heat Lance delivery system, the Talos. It's even twin-linked. Seems like a good unit to charge out of a webway portal to me.
Reavers also look like a fairly good idea. Eldar Jetbike means they can get back after shooting. Another thing to consider is that when shooting things like termies, blasters and heat lances are pretty much identical.

Blaster @ 18 inches
.2222 % Chance to pen, .1111% Chance to glance
Heat Lance @ 18 inches
.1111 % Chance to glance (Although Ap 1)
Heat Lance @ 9 inches
.3889 % Chance to glance, .0926 % Chance to glance (Ap 1)
Multimelta @ 12 inches
Against Av 14, identical to Heat Lance, better against lower Av values

Dracos wrote:Lets see, you can get heat lances on 2 units, reavers and scourges. Neither of which are CC units. Thank you, come again!

yeah, but those units can get into effective range very quickly. i can all but garuntee Reavers will get a shot off.

I'm beginning to look at scourges a bit more seriously, thet offer the cheapest DL in the whole book (a scourge+DL is only 3 points more than a Warrior and his DL) They can DS and have a 4+6++ - but really as they will DS why not take a HL? That could mean for 128ish, you'd have a DL a HL and a blaster... it striking me as not inefficent

AP is very important. The Heat Lance might not be a reliable to penetrate as the blaster, but it is more likely to damage what it hits.

ChrisCP wrote:I'm beginning to look at scourges a bit more seriously, thet offer the cheapest DL in the whole book (a scourge+DL is only 3 points more than a Warrior and his DL) They can DS and have a 4+6++ - but really as they will DS why not take a HL? That could mean for 128ish, you'd have a DL a HL and a blaster... it striking me as not inefficent

agree. deep striking heat lances force your opponent to work around them or suffer horrible consequences. heat lances are good.

Grey Templar wrote:

Dracos wrote:Lets see, you can get heat lances on 2 units, reavers and scourges. Neither of which are CC units. Thank you, come again!

yeah, but those units can get into effective range very quickly. i can all but garuntee Reavers will get a shot off.

Reavers are T 4, with a 5+ save. If they're firing their Heat Lances, they're not turbo-boosting, and they're thus lacking a cover save. Bolters will shred this unit.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:I'm beginning to look at scourges a bit more seriously, thet offer the cheapest DL in the whole book (a scourge+DL is only 3 points more than a Warrior and his DL) They can DS and have a 4+6++ - but really as they will DS why not take a HL? That could mean for 128ish, you'd have a DL a HL and a blaster... it striking me as not inefficent

agree. deep striking heat lances force your opponent to work around them or suffer horrible consequences. heat lances are good.

In which case, your Scourges are clustered together into a nice little ball. And why would you match a Dark Lance with a Heat Lance, instead of two of 1 weapon? Template weapons and blast weapons, turn that 'tactic' into a joke.

Not to mention Scourges are naturally suited to anti-infantry, not anti-tank. You're paying 22 points per model for them - you might as well take advantage of the very expensive guns they're already equipped with.

I did intend to mean going either/or for the DL/HL =P Can't type~!

Well, one reason to look at them that way is just how felxible the whole codex is, you have AT in every slot, AI in every slot, so on so forth. I can feel the dex playing out much the same way a good nids list will, target saturation where everything will damage your army if left unchecked.

To say that using scourges as AI is the best and wisest application is IMO about the same as saying well, I only need two dl per Ravager so I take a dizzy as well. They might kill infantry well but seriously, Ass3, 4+, AP5 isn't that good for the price imo, when put next to the fact that most of your units do crowd control already - to forgo extra fast, hole plugging AT? For Infantry killers? Not the best choice imo.

For the sweet love of Buddah can you try to flame less, talk less about heat lances and stay on the subject? PLEASE. come on, Heat Lance is not even an option for this unit.

Now back on the subject.

The problem with the blast theory IMHO is that I have a hard time seing DE survive 2 rounds of shooting unless you take out there tanks. If DA lose mobilaty, they are dead in the water.

The dark lance with a static range of 36 has a good chance to get something in it's field of fire. The blaster on the other hand only has 18" field of fire, but you can't shoot out of a transport if you moved at cruizing speed. You can of course move 12", get out 2" and shoot 18" getting a whoping range of 32, but if you did not find any cover to land in you are quite dead.

minmax wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:I'm beginning to look at scourges a bit more seriously, thet offer the cheapest DL in the whole book (a scourge+DL is only 3 points more than a Warrior and his DL) They can DS and have a 4+6++ - but really as they will DS why not take a HL? That could mean for 128ish, you'd have a DL a HL and a blaster... it striking me as not inefficent

agree. deep striking heat lances force your opponent to work around them or suffer horrible consequences. heat lances are good.

In which case, your Scourges are clustered together into a nice little ball. And why would you match a Dark Lance with a Heat Lance, instead of two of 1 weapon? Template weapons and blast weapons, turn that 'tactic' into a joke.

Not to mention Scourges are naturally suited to anti-infantry, not anti-tank. You're paying 22 points per model for them - you might as well take advantage of the very expensive guns they're already equipped with.

eh. there are alot of things you can do to increase the survivability of deep striking units. 1. deploy in cover 2. deploy out of range 3. run them 4. deploy right next to their most threatening gun and kill it. deep striking things isnt as risky as is commonly believed. as for being better for anti-infantry roles.... that may be so. I dont think volume of fire strategies work very well in general since there are so many armies with defensive strategies that defeat it. heat lances cut through all that nonsense so there are times (vs plague marines for instance) where the heat lance will definitely be the better gun even vs. infantry. if the delivery methods for the heat lance werent so limited Id be inclined to agree with you though, but it might be worth while giving up a few poisoned attacks in an army that already has plenty in order to take such a powerful anti tank gun. AF

The issue with Dark Lances is that they cannot fire out a moving vehicle, being as they're heavy weapons. If you're hoping for a mobile gunboat, either take Ravagers, or equip your models with Blasters. 5 Trueborn with 2/3 blasters in a venom - though not massively cheap - is fast and deadly, able to use the blasters on vehicles, or pour splinter shots into anything weakened by the rest of the army's fire-power. Duality is always a good thing; a dedicated anti-tank unit is wasted when for some reason it cant fire at a tank. Similarly, a unit of 10 Trueborn with splinter cannons and shard carbines combines massive anti-infantry firepower with the moderate anti-tank ability of the dark lance on the raider.

With the modern effectiveness of cover, coupled with 5th's reliance on objectives/troops scoring, I cant help thinking a pair or so of 10-man basic kabalite warriors are useful for sitting in cover and holding your objectives. Give them 2 dark lances, and they can then pose a threat to approaching tanks. Give them a pain token via a homunculus and make them go to ground every time someone sneezes at them, and they are not going anywhere save being assaulted (so make sure you cripple enemy mobility).

On the subject of heat lances, the fact that they're restricted to two very mobile but very delicate units is no coincidence. As the below diagram shows, Heat Lances are only effective in melta range; and being in melta range means if you destroy a transport vehicle (and the AP1 makes this much more likely than any other result) you're going to get charged next turn. As such, resist the easy option of heat lancing rhinos or chimeras; your expensive unit will be murdered next turn. Instead, use the heat lance on non-transport vehicles for two reasons. 1) Your unit is more likely to survive another turn to destroy something else especially if you play angles/cover right and 2) Heat Lances are best used against high-AV vehicles anyway, not usually found on transport vehicles (Land Raiders aside, and depending on the content of a Land Raider, the sacrifice of a unit of Scourges/Reavers may be worth it) so use the Heat Lances on the tough stuff, and dark lances on other things.

good analysis.

While that graph is interesting, it only shows raw numbers, and lacks a proper context to determine what those numbers actually mean.

A 5 man unit of scourges with 2 heat lances is 134 points. 5 bodies with T3 and a 4+ will not last long enough to make it within 9", even factoring in the fact that they have a 21" threat range. They just worse than blaster squads if they don't get within 9". Furthermore darklance squads will be able to fire several times more per game than the heat lance squad, so even if they manage to make it into range they will likely not survive any kind of reprisal. I'd prefer blasters on my scourges, if I were to use them, but YMMV. I don't think I'll be using anti-vehicle scourges at all.

A 6 man unit of reavers with 2 heat lances is 156 points. 6 bodies with T4 and a 5+ has a much better chance at surviving, if only because they can turbo boost for a 3+ cover and when they get the chance to use the heat lance the next turn, they can assault move backwards to try and stay out of rapid fire distance. The reavers will likely not get too many rounds of shooting its heat lances either, but are much more likely to survive than the scourges. Because of their turbo boosting rules, I'd be likely to take the heat lance on Reavers if I were to ever use them.

However, both these options pale in comparison to the Trueborn squad or Ravager in terms of anti-vehicle. 3 Trueborn with 2 darklances is 86 points (or you can go the more survivable route with 5 bodies @ 110 points), or 4 trueborn with 4 blasters in a venom for 163 points. The 4 blaster trueborn squad has twice the shots of either the reaver or the scourges, and doesn't need to get as close. I'd submit that this squad is far superior for anti-vehicle shooting.