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.

With the switch to 6th edition and the reduction in cover saves, is the turret heavy bolter more viable compared to the multilaser? The increased vulnerability of light vehicles might signal a reduction in their use, so the higher strength might be less important while less cover makes the AP more important. I am assembling my force and while I am almost 100% behind multilasers, I want to get some opinion on the use of the heavy bolter in the new edition.

As an aside, what are the general thoughts on the hull weapon these days?

Well, the multi-laser (as the heavy stubber) no longer have armour piercing capabilitites, their adventage rely on Str6 and 3 shots per firing 'move'; Heavy botler is Str 4, but AP5, AND with 3 shots as well, not to mention also being at 36' inch range.

So it is +1 Str or having an AP value that's to ask.

With the primary infantry still being Space Marines, the difference of AP doesn't matter, so the improved strength of the multilaser means more 3+ saves to make. Also, the multilaser denies Dark Eldar their FnP, doubles out T3 models in general, and mixes APs, allowing you to do all manner of foolishness with allocating wound pools.

My hull weapons are split between heavy bolters on the Chimeras and heavy flamers on all the other tanks on that hull.

Heavy bolters are S5, AP4. I assume you just swapped them.

Yeah, that is the question. In 6th, is the AP more important than the strength or does the multilaser still rule the chimera turret?

What about Autocannons, now that FW is entering fair-play?
Seems to be the best option.

FW is entering fair play?

Anyways, for codex guard, the default multilaser+heavy bolter is now the clear winner. Glancing to death means that multilasers will actually kill light vehicles now, and makes the heavy bolter useful at all against these target types. That you're now a bit more likely to use the Ap of the heavy bolter is also a plus.

Given that chimeras are more fragile, you have less assurances of getting a heavy flamer into range at all.

The 2x HB chimera is also a more honorable mention, especially if you know you're going up against at least a couple of foot hordes in the near future.

I think the multi-laser is still king. A mix of Autocannons and Multi-lasers would probably be the best mix.

TheCaptain wrote:What about Autocannons, now that FW is entering fair-play?
Seems to be the best option.

it is clearly the best option, but its FW only which means it is only legal with your opponents consent. If somebody shows up with a bunch of OP forgeworld guard, allied SW rune priests, and more guardsman marbo than i feel comfortable with I simply wont play.

FW stuff goes from useless to crazily OP, very little in between.

Exergy wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:What about Autocannons, now that FW is entering fair-play?
Seems to be the best option.

it is clearly the best option, but its FW only which means it is only legal with your opponents consent. If somebody shows up with a bunch of OP forgeworld guard, allied SW rune priests, and more guardsman marbo than i feel comfortable with I simply wont play.

FW stuff goes from useless to crazily OP, very little in between.

Sorry, but your just wrong on that bit.


I would say the vast majority of FW rules(those that are meant for normal games) are underpowered. Something in the realm of 80%. Then maybe 15% is just right. And 5% is genuinely OP/under priced.

Exergy wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:What about Autocannons, now that FW is entering fair-play?
Seems to be the best option.

it is clearly the best option, but its FW only which means it is only legal with your opponents consent. If somebody shows up with a bunch of OP forgeworld guard, allied SW rune priests, and more guardsman marbo than i feel comfortable with I simply wont play.

FW stuff goes from useless to crazily OP, very little in between.

O_o methinks someone needs to read more of the FW rules, nothing in there is any worse than what you'd fine in a normal codex really, and most isn't particularly good/useful. Likewise FW requires no more permission than anything else, you can refuse to play against Abaddon or a Leman Russ tank or Chaos Daemons with no more effort or reason than a Vulture or DKoK Siege Regiment.

Autocannon turrets ok, but aren't the clear winner some think they are at first. They increase the cost of the vehicle by ~10%, decrease effectiveness against anything with a T value that isn't sporting a 4+sv in the open (6+/5+/3+/2+sv's the ML will do as well or better against), decreases performance against AV10 vehicles, is about the same against AV11.

The Autocannon is only clearly superior against AV12 targets, infantry with 4+ saves (not 6+/5+/3+/2+) in the open or targets between >36" and =<48", at a ~10% increase in cost, and is equal to or usually worse against everything else.

FW and Autocannons aside, Only the Multilaser *really* has a place as a turret weapon on the Chimera. The HB's AP4 wont' matter enough of the time and the increased S will matter a whole lot. Hull Heavy bolter is better this edition but still situational, more static squads will prefer the HB, more mobile units will like the hull Heavy Flamer (pop a tank with melta unit inside, hit contents with heavy flamer for instance).

But the Autocannon has a longer range. Good for plinking away at some transports/big monsters early on.

To be fair, most games, you'll already be able to shoot into the enemy's deployment zone with 36" range weapons.

Ailaros wrote:FW is entering fair play?

Yeah. FW is FAQing most of their stuff to be compatible, and here http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/07/06/forgeworld-imperial-armor-aeronautica-and-a-rumor/ a GW rep was quoted as saying FW is useable in tournaments.

Vaktathi wrote:

Exergy wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:What about Autocannons, now that FW is entering fair-play?
Seems to be the best option.

it is clearly the best option, but its FW only which means it is only legal with your opponents consent. If somebody shows up with a bunch of OP forgeworld guard, allied SW rune priests, and more guardsman marbo than i feel comfortable with I simply wont play.

FW stuff goes from useless to crazily OP, very little in between.

O_o methinks someone needs to read more of the FW rules, nothing in there is any worse than what you'd fine in a normal codex really, and most isn't particularly good/useful.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/HADES-BREACHING-DRILL.html

OP useful.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Imperial_Guard_Support_Vehicles/ATLAS-RECOVERY-TANK-COMPLETE-KIT.html

Borderline useless.

Grey Templar is the most right with his above statement.

TheCaptain wrote:

Ailaros wrote:FW is entering fair play?

Yeah. FW is FAQing most of their stuff to be compatible, and here http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/07/06/forgeworld-imperial-armor-aeronautica-and-a-rumor/ a GW rep was quoted as saying FW is useable in tournaments.

Which isn't a change from before, any TO could allow or disallow FW stuff.

TheCaptain wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/HADES-BREACHING-DRILL.html

OP useful.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Imperial_Guard_Support_Vehicles/ATLAS-RECOVERY-TANK-COMPLETE-KIT.html

Borderline useless.

Grey Templar is the most right with his above statement.

Yes, cherry-picking stuff will make your argument appear correct.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:

Ailaros wrote:FW is entering fair play?

Yeah. FW is FAQing most of their stuff to be compatible, and here http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/07/06/forgeworld-imperial-armor-aeronautica-and-a-rumor/ a GW rep was quoted as saying FW is useable in tournaments.

Which isn't a change from before, any TO could allow or disallow FW stuff.

TheCaptain wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/HADES-BREACHING-DRILL.html

OP useful.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Imperial_Guard_Support_Vehicles/ATLAS-RECOVERY-TANK-COMPLETE-KIT.html

Borderline useless.

Grey Templar is the most right with his above statement.

Yes, cherry-picking stuff will make your argument appear correct.

A. Games Workshop never gave much in the line of allowing FW for competitive play, but now have come out and been quoted as saying yes.

And B. In this case, sonny, it does. My argument was that FW stuff runs the gambit from OP to useless, and I just displayed both extremes. Seems like pretty sound proof.

So do Codex units to be fair, from Vendettas on one end to Conscripts or Penal Legion on the other and countless other examples. FW has maybe half a dozen units, if that, that people have an issue with for non-Apoc gameplay.

TheCaptain wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:

Ailaros wrote:FW is entering fair play?

Yeah. FW is FAQing most of their stuff to be compatible, and here http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2012/07/06/forgeworld-imperial-armor-aeronautica-and-a-rumor/ a GW rep was quoted as saying FW is useable in tournaments.

Which isn't a change from before, any TO could allow or disallow FW stuff.

TheCaptain wrote:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Death-Korps-of-Krieg/HADES-BREACHING-DRILL.html

OP useful.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Imperial_Guard/Imperial_Guard_Support_Vehicles/ATLAS-RECOVERY-TANK-COMPLETE-KIT.html

Borderline useless.

Grey Templar is the most right with his above statement.

Yes, cherry-picking stuff will make your argument appear correct.

A. Games Workshop never gave much in the line of allowing FW for competitive play, but now have come out and been quoted as saying yes.

And B. In this case, sonny, it does. My argument was that FW stuff runs the gambit from OP to useless, and I just displayed both extremes. Seems like pretty sound proof.

The argument was that Forgeworld goes from crazy OP to crazy UP with little to nothing inbetween. Showing that the two extremes exist doesn't prove anything.

Don't put words in my mouth, boy.

TheCaptain wrote:Don't put words in my mouth, boy.

Since I didn't get what you meant, care explaining, pal?

If you really want me to create a list, well...I won't, because anyone who has been on FW's website knows that the vast majority of their stuff occupies an extreme, I myself playing Elysians experience this daily. If you're unconvinced, you may visit forgeworld.co.uk and look for yourself, and if you're just content trying to shoot holes in my posts, kindly cease.

So, "don't point out the errors in my post", eh?

TheCaptain wrote:If you really want me to create a list, well...I won't, because anyone who has been on FW's website knows that the vast majority of their stuff occupies an extreme,

I have, and it doesn't, most of it's about right bad in the middle at "merely ok" (at least, of the stuff that's designed for something other than purely narrative purposes)

I don't see how it's any difference from any other codex. There's just more units in forge-world lists because they favour narrative.

Vendetta: OP useful
Techpriest: Borderline useless.

Or any other of the dozen comparisons from the IG codex.


I agree with Vak in that the vast majority of FW stuff is in the mediocre to sorta bad category as far as rules go, with the usual exception youd find in any codex (yeah, the hades is awesome, but the engineers that come through it are pretty bluh) They seem to play it on the careful side of the fence when it comes to balance. You play FW because you want to play a themed army, not because the rules are superior.