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.

Alright, now that sixth allows LS to move 12" and shoot everything, I was wondering if I should change my two current LS from MM/HF to one MM/MM + one HF/HF. My reasoning is that since I am taking 2 speeders anyway, making each LS dedicated gives me a lot of goodies:

1. For an all comers list, I can allocate wounds to either the MM/MM speeder if I need anti infantry or the opposite if I need anti AV.
2. When using HF, I can position 1 speeder optimally to cover both hits, instead of placing one speeder optimally for one hit and the second speeder sub-optimally for the other hit.
3. Best positioning for the speeder that I need: If I need one speeder more than the other, I can place that one in the best position (ie. in front for extra range).

Now of course if you are running only one speeder in an all-comers list, it is still probably better to take a MM/HF speeder, but if you have 2, I can't see any reason not to run both dedicated.

The only downside I see:
1. Is if you want to use both your MM and you HF in the battle. Because if one speeder dies, you will lose your ability to either MM or HF. Whereas if you had 2 HF/MM speeders, then if you lost one, you could still use both.

Am I missing any upsides or downsides to 1MM/MM+1HF/HF, or any upsides or downsides to 2 MM/HF speeders?

Thanks in advance!

I think it makes perfect sense - I'm very unconvinced by the MM/HF speeder in 6th edition. It's all very well saying you'd like the ability to fill both roles, however you're giving up half your firepower to do it. In particular a single multi-melta is just too unreliable, give the 1/3 chance of missing in addition to the other rolls required.

I've been using a double HF speeder for a while now and love it, and have a double MM one on the drawing board.

The only real downside is the need to take them in separate fast attack slots - you can start to run out very quickly this way!

 Hedgehog wrote:
I think it makes perfect sense - I'm very unconvinced by the MM/HF speeder in 6th edition. It's all very well saying you'd like the ability to fill both roles, however you're giving up half your firepower to do it. In particular a single multi-melta is just too unreliable, give the 1/3 chance of missing in addition to the other rolls required.

I've been using a double HF speeder for a while now and love it, and have a double MM one on the drawing board.

The only real downside is the need to take them in separate fast attack slots - you can start to run out very quickly this way!

Very true, and neither are as durable, which means neither will be able to get more shots in. In a perfect world Id have an infinite amount of money, and would probably try out 3 MM/MM speeders and 3 HF/HF speeders on the same list haha.

But yeah, 6th really has started to change my army list (as I am sure it has done a lot of people). Unless you are only using a single speeder, the MM/HF thing isnt as good. Or of course, you could run 3 speeders, 1 MM/MM 1 HF/HF and 1 MM/HF, but I think the advantage isnt as steep as going from 1 to 2 as it is from 2 to 3.

You don't always have the option to allocate the wounds the way you'd like. You can put the victim up front, but mobile firepower or barrage weapons can get the hits coming in from an unfavorable direction. This assumes squadroning, which I would not do for a mixed load squadron. IMHO the double weapon speeders need to be in separate slots on the FOC.

If you are running a single speeder, doubling up on the weapons is a good idea. Running multiple squadrons of the same double weapon seems overkill (barring specific situations, like apocalypse games)

I'm an Ultramarine player. I've got TAC, multi-role flexibility hardwired down to my gene-seed. Hyper-specialization is for Xenos. I enjoy the classic MM/HF tornado.

Warning: stream of consciousness rambling ahead as I think about the issue.

With mixed squads, you end up with half the squad acting as cheerleaders while the rest does the work. I'm not fond of this practice. But the cost of a (MM/MM + HF/HF) squad is the same as a (2xMM/HF) squad it's not an issue of wasted points. The points are wasted (or invested in flexibility) anyway. Is it better to spend points on wargear of models? In an ideal situation, having the weapons doubled up will let them get into the perfect position. Point for the 2x. If you have the FA slots, double weapons let you get the ideal weapons to the ideal targets at the same time. Also point 2x. But lets think about the actual table, and not the theoretical one. You can't guarantee that the right speeder will live. Their very nature demands aggressive deployment, so it will take minimal effort (if any) to get some guns pointed at the one you want to live to shoot it down first. Point mix. This is where the redundancy of the mixed speeder comes in. If only one lives, it's going to have at least one of the right gun left to do the job. Also, if you are just fielding one, mixed is the way to go for most TAC lists. Sidebar: Vulcan makes the MM/MM redundant with TLing (how much melta do you need to pump into the side of a tank?) But TL'd HF/HF is just going to make troops evaporate. Still, MM/HF is probably the go-to for salamanders. Mechanically, I'm calling this a wash. 2x speeders look to work better in ideal circumstances, but I think on the table, I like the redundancy of the mix. This is our normal risk/reward evaluation. 2x speeders have a higher potential in ideal circumstances, but perform worse in bad ones. Mixed lack the high end, but also the low. Aesthetics? Both look about the same, no preference. Fluff/tradition? Mixed gain points here. Practicality? I'd have to see what a modern speeder kit comes with, as mine date to 3rd (or older) magnets probably make this a non-issue. Other options? HB/AC/TML? The AC might have a place in this discussion, but lets not muddy the waters. Don't like them on speeders anyway. Looking ahead, DA pay the same price, so unlikely to change in the new codex. Situation is stable. FW experimental rules are paradigm shifting for speeders, but we'll cross that bridge once we get to it.

TLR: I warned you not to read it, my opinion was in the first few lines.

 Nevelon wrote:
You don't always have the option to allocate the wounds the way you'd like. You can put the victim up front, but mobile firepower or barrage weapons can get the hits coming in from an unfavorable direction. This assumes squadroning, which I would not do for a mixed load squadron. IMHO the double weapon speeders need to be in separate slots on the FOC.

If you are running a single speeder, doubling up on the weapons is a good idea. Running multiple squadrons of the same double weapon seems overkill (barring specific situations, like apocalypse games)

I'm an Ultramarine player. I've got TAC, multi-role flexibility hardwired down to my gene-seed. Hyper-specialization is for Xenos. I enjoy the classic MM/HF tornado.

Warning: stream of consciousness rambling ahead as I think about the issue.

With mixed squads, you end up with half the squad acting as cheerleaders while the rest does the work. I'm not fond of this practice. But the cost of a (MM/MM + HF/HF) squad is the same as a (2xMM/HF) squad it's not an issue of wasted points. The points are wasted (or invested in flexibility) anyway. Is it better to spend points on wargear of models? In an ideal situation, having the weapons doubled up will let them get into the perfect position. Point for the 2x. If you have the FA slots, double weapons let you get the ideal weapons to the ideal targets at the same time. Also point 2x. But lets think about the actual table, and not the theoretical one. You can't guarantee that the right speeder will live. Their very nature demands aggressive deployment, so it will take minimal effort (if any) to get some guns pointed at the one you want to live to shoot it down first. Point mix. This is where the redundancy of the mixed speeder comes in. If only one lives, it's going to have at least one of the right gun left to do the job. Also, if you are just fielding one, mixed is the way to go for most TAC lists. Sidebar: Vulcan makes the MM/MM redundant with TLing (how much melta do you need to pump into the side of a tank?) But TL'd HF/HF is just going to make troops evaporate. Still, MM/HF is probably the go-to for salamanders. Mechanically, I'm calling this a wash. 2x speeders look to work better in ideal circumstances, but I think on the table, I like the redundancy of the mix. This is our normal risk/reward evaluation. 2x speeders have a higher potential in ideal circumstances, but perform worse in bad ones. Mixed lack the high end, but also the low. Aesthetics? Both look about the same, no preference. Fluff/tradition? Mixed gain points here. Practicality? I'd have to see what a modern speeder kit comes with, as mine date to 3rd (or older) magnets probably make this a non-issue. Other options? HB/AC/TML? The AC might have a place in this discussion, but lets not muddy the waters. Don't like them on speeders anyway. Looking ahead, DA pay the same price, so unlikely to change in the new codex. Situation is stable. FW experimental rules are paradigm shifting for speeders, but we'll cross that bridge once we get to it.

TLR: I warned you not to read it, my opinion was in the first few lines.

Thanks Nevelon, great points made well, so if I am squadroning them and using both MM and HF, itll be good to mix, while if I want dedicated, just use FOC.