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.

So... Alairos is telling us he plays backyard guard with no heavy weapons, only specials... on foot... and that he would take dual HF's on his chimeras?

Sure, so take a guard 3x autocannon HWS against a guard 3x meltagun SWS.

The math of a BS3 autocannon means that you need to shoot at a AV12 transport for 20 turns with a single autocannon to stop it. In this case, you get 3, so a single autocannon HWS takes about 6-7 turns to reliably blow up the transport.

Of course, what you're really looking to do is down it by turn 2, not turn 7, which means that you need to buy 4 of them in order to achieve the desired effect. Not only does this create some cluttered deployment zones, but it also costs 300 points.

Meanwhile, 3x meltaguns will take down that transport in 2 turns. It costs 65 points to do the same job that it takes autocannons 300 points to do. This means that you can take 2 more meltagun squads and have triple the anti-transport power for the same number of points.

Furthermore, those meltaguns are also good against real tanks and heavier transports (like land raiders), while allowing you to insta-kill T4 multi-wounds and putting wounds on a MC faster.

This is an examle from the guard, as I don't know other armies' points costs. That said, I know that every army gets effective anti-transport weapons, so I know it's possible with them as well.

God you love living in your fool's paradise eh? I think we've lost him gentlemen. This is watered down, simplistic gak you're throwing at us!

OK, I'm going to wade in on this one...

Transports, by their very definition, are mostly used for one thing and one thing only; the delivery of their cargo. In light of this, it can be argued that that 35pt Rhino is not actually 35pts. It actually costs 35+235 (using a Khorne Beserker example here). That one Rhino now has an incredible value attached to it that, if shut down for one or two turns, throws a rather large spanner into the works of my enemy. I would advocate that it is FAR more beneficial to allocate some of your points reserve to ensure that a (now) 270pt Rhino gets shut down rather than simply grant said unit free reign around the board.

On that basis spending a bunch of points on autocannons can be beneficial, as you only have to stun that Rhino before the remainder of those heavy weapons target something else; delaying your enemy by a turn at least.

As previously stated, if you allow your enemy's vehicles to trundle around unapposed you are handing over the initiative on a platter, allowing him to strike as and where he pleases whilst you scuttle your SWS around desperately trying to get to within 6".

As also previously stated, transports have a use even after they drop their contents off. LOS blocking, tank shocking, objective contesting. All of these you will be powerless to stop, as you'll be tied up in a huge muti-assault with all those squads being given free journeys to the front line.

Ailaros: I regularly diagree with you, however even in the autocannon debates your logic hasn't been this....weird. Your actually advising people to not worry about transports until they get to within 6" (melta range) because thats the most effective way to despatch them?! If a transport gets to within 6" it just did EXACTLY what your opponent wanted it to do, and now he can let your meltas blow it up, safe in the knowledge that unless you have an exceptional shooting phase, some of his assault forces will remain to tear you a new one in his turn.

You've always been a strong believer in effectiveness and to some extent I would agree that a meltagun IS very effective, but you are using an offensive weapon in a defensive manner. Rather than being pro-active and finding ways to isolate his units on his side of the board, you are waiting until he gets himself into short-range, which is pretty much exactly where he wants to be.

I just cannot, cannot see the logic behind what you are saying. I see the purpose (bring weapons that are good at what they do), but by denying yourself longer-range alternatives I just cannot see how you expect to face off against fast-moving assault heavy armies such as Orks or Wych Cult.

L. Wrexx

alairos wrote:
Please get cocky and walk your monstrous creatures up the board so I can kill them in a single plasma barrage.

I'm surprised you're afraid of long ranged guns given how few wounds they put out.

Except youre going to be getting eaten by the 100 smaller, faster bugs and then have to deal with full wound monsters in combat the next turn...great...?

I dont understand how they put out so few wounds when it is essentially hitting on 3's (or 4's if guard) and then a 2+. They wound more often than not.

Ailaros wrote:Sure, so take a guard 3x autocannon HWS against a guard 3x meltagun SWS.

The math of a BS3 autocannon means that you need to shoot at a AV12 transport for 20 turns with a single autocannon to stop it. In this case, you get 3, so a single autocannon HWS takes about 6-7 turns to reliably blow up the transport.

Of course, what you're really looking to do is down it by turn 2, not turn 7, which means that you need to buy 4 of them in order to achieve the desired effect. Not only does this create some cluttered deployment zones, but it also costs 300 points.

Meanwhile, 3x meltaguns will take down that transport in 2 turns. It costs 65 points to do the same job that it takes autocannons 300 points to do. This means that you can take 2 more meltagun squads and have triple the anti-transport power for the same number of points.

Furthermore, those meltaguns are also good against real tanks and heavier transports (like land raiders), while allowing you to insta-kill T4 multi-wounds and putting wounds on a MC faster.

This is an examle from the guard, as I don't know other armies' points costs. That said, I know that every army gets effective anti-transport weapons, so I know it's possible with them as well.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I had to point this bit out as a massive 'WTF!' popped into my head as a re-read it. First of all; you aren't taking into account the range of the guns in question. My autocannon HWS has an effective range 6 x greater than yours (42"-6"(melta range) = 36"). That, in essence, gives me 6 turns more shooting than your SWS. I don't know about you, but I just made my single autocannon HWS 6 x more likely to damage that vehicle before your meltaguns even get into melta range. I have now made my autocannon HWS worth 6 x what you pay for your SWS as I achieve exactly the same goals, much faster. Secondly, AV12 is simply not the most common form of armour you will face on the table. AV10-11 is. This also drastically improves the odds on the autocannon doing what it wants to do (stun, immobilise, wreck, destroy). Thirdly, transports do not have to be blown up. As I just said, a simple stun will do, and then I can focus my firepower elsewhere.

Sorry but what you have said above simply is NOT true.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex said what I wanted while being more polite and making more sense, more power to him.

Alairos is also forgetting more factors like:

Multiple units can be in multiple locations, and cannot simply be avoided, by the transport going somewhere else.

He is also assuming that what is in the transports is as weedy as a grot.

I would actually like to agree with Ailaros, and have previously considered putting together a melta-centric list. Lots and lots, and lots and lots... a whole bunch of FD, backed up by Sguardians. Stick the whole army in tanks, and drive around melting everything in sight.

The problem is the concept wasn't sound, it didn't work, and was little more than a joke in testing. I can do better with my Stealthdar list, and that one is mainly for fun.

I like meltas and they tend to be in every list I make, when possible. 20 meltas in one list, especially in the hands of what is mainly going to be a measly BS3 platform, is funny but not effective. "YAY! I can pop 3 LR a turn!" is just not a good enough reason for me, and that is the main benefit of having that many melta in the first place.

Sanctjud wrote:Well... in a certain point of view, Ailaros is sparking a great discussion ... even if most of it is a responce to how 'off' his ideas about 40K are.

Not really a discussion, more of a soap-opera

He sure is relentless though, I gave up on this "discussion" several pages ago, and he's still going strong, makes for an entertaining read

"If a transport gets to within 6" it just did EXACTLY what your opponent wanted it to do, and now he can let your meltas blow it up, safe in the knowledge that unless you have an exceptional shooting phase, some of his assault forces will remain to tear you a new one in his turn. "

this ^^^^
game. set. Match.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:So... Alairos is telling us he plays backyard guard with no heavy weapons, only specials... on foot... and that he would take dual HF's on his chimeras?

Could you please actually READ what I write before picking out a piece of it and pretending that I'm saying the opposite of what I said?

Night Lords wrote:Except youre going to be getting eaten by the 100 smaller, faster bugs and then have to deal with full wound monsters in combat the next turn...great...?

What part of me refusing to take crappy anti-transport weapons implies that I can't take down lots of little bugs?

Night Lords wrote:I dont understand how they put out so few wounds when it is essentially hitting on 3's (or 4's if guard) and then a 2+. They wound more often than not.

What kind of monstrous creatures are you playing with? It takes a guard autocannon 5 turns to put a single wound on a tervigon that sticks. Then they have 5 more...

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Multiple units can be in multiple locations, and cannot simply be avoided, by the transport going somewhere else.

This is just as true for squads with effective weapons as for those who don't.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:He is also assuming that what is in the transports is as weedy as a grot.

No, I'm assuming that the most damage you can do comes from short ranged weapons. Flamers do more damage per shot than heavy bolters (even if the latter shoot for several turns), along with things like plasma guns, demo charges, assaulting them, etc. etc.

It's not that the transportees are weak, it's that short ranged weapons are good.

Wrexasaur wrote:The problem is the concept wasn't sound, it didn't work, and was little more than a joke in testing.

I'm sorry it didn't work for you. Perhaps the reason had to do with that you only tried it once or twice and weren't serious about it.

Wrexasaur wrote:I like meltas and they tend to be in every list I make, when possible. 20 meltas in one list, especially in the hands of what is mainly going to be a measly BS3 platform, is funny but not effective.

If BS3 is the only thing that matters, then you're basically saying that the guard as an army are "funny but can't be effective".

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: First of all; you aren't taking into account the range of the guns in question. My autocannon HWS has an effective range 6 x greater than yours (42"-6"(melta range) = 36"). That, in essence, gives me 6 turns more shooting than your SWS.

What? This is assuming that the transport is just sitting still the entire game, and so are my meltaguns.

Transports have to come to you. How many turns do you think that will take? If they don't, then they're not completing objectives and they're losing, so what's the problem?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:I have now made my autocannon HWS worth 6 x what you pay for your SWS as I achieve exactly the same goals, much faster.

Wait, how? I mean, other than in the above situation which will never happen.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Secondly, AV12 is simply not the most common form of armour you will face on the table. AV10-11 is

But meltaguns also get better as the AV goes down at the same time that other guns do.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:In light of this, it can be argued that that 35pt Rhino is not actually 35pts. It actually costs 35+235 (using a Khorne Beserker example here)

You could argue this, if killing the transports killed all the beserkers inside.

As it is, berzerkers can still do a lot of damage, transport or not.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:That one Rhino now has an incredible value attached to it that, if shut down for one or two turns, throws a rather large spanner into the works of my enemy.

You're seeming to assume that once you destroy a transport, the unit inside is completely done. In actuality, all you're doing is changing him from going from 12" to 7"-12". If you're opponent can't handle a few fewer inches of movement without dying horribly, then they're awful with transport lists.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:As previously stated, if you allow your enemy's vehicles to trundle around unapposed you are handing over the initiative on a platter, allowing him to strike as and where he pleases whilst you scuttle your SWS around desperately trying to get to within 6".

Firstly, I'm not implying this. You could put your meltaguns on bikes, or deepstrike them, or put them in transports.

Secondly, as mentioned, if your opponent is flitsing around, they're not coming towards objective, and you win. Or they're coming towards the objectives, where my short-ranged won't need to run around chasing after them.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:I just cannot see how you expect to face off against fast-moving assault heavy armies

Because they need to come to me in order to win. I've faced off against several fast-moving armies before, and they've always gotten in range of my short-ranged guns.

Otherwise, if they just huddle in the corner out of range, they'd lose...

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:As also previously stated, transports have a use even after they drop their contents off.

Use for what end?

Plus, once they drop their cargo off near my stuff, they're dead, and won't be doing a whole lot, will they?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:If a transport gets to within 6" it just did EXACTLY what your opponent wanted it to do, and now he can let your meltas blow it up,

So?

When I fail to destroy my opponent's drop pod, I'm letting my opponent do EXACTLY what they want. Does this somehow mean I lose? Just because my opponent is able to move slightly faster doesn't mean I'm somehow screwed.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:safe in the knowledge that unless you have an exceptional shooting phase, some of his assault forces will remain to tear you a new one in his turn.

"exceptional"? I throw demo charges on them and they die. I throw demolisher rounds on them and they die. I throw death company at them and they die. There are SO MANY ways to kill your opponent's stuff at close range, you don't need to be exceptional.

A nitwit who doesn't seem to ever give up wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:He is also assuming that what is in the transports is as weedy as a grot.

No, I'm assuming that the most damage you can do comes from short ranged weapons. Flamers do more damage per shot than heavy bolters (even if the latter shoot for several turns), along with things like plasma guns, demo charges, assaulting them, etc. etc.

It's not that the transportees are weak, it's that short ranged weapons are good.

So... you kill the transport, then the units that may have "STRONG SHORT RANGE WEAPONS" are within 6" of your troops. Look you killed their 35-55 point transport, then they faceslam your more expensive unit. Assuming it even did destroy the transport.

I really think you're clutching at grass at this point.

Ailaros wrote:No, I'm assuming that the most damage you can do comes from short ranged weapons. Flamers do more damage per shot than heavy bolters (even if the latter shoot for several turns), along with things like plasma guns, demo charges, assaulting them, etc. etc.

It's not that the transportees are weak, it's that short ranged weapons are good.

'Good' is not synonymous with the 'pinnacle of all weapons that are available for use in the game'...
I am happy they work for you, if they happen to work for you, but your arguments are not convincing as a solid foundation for the tactics you suggest.

It seems like you're beginning to sound a bit like this...

Wrexasaur wrote:The problem is the concept wasn't sound, it didn't work, and was little more than a joke in testing.

I'm sorry it didn't work for you. Perhaps the reason had to do with that you only tried it once or twice and weren't serious about it.

The army was a joke, not the testing. I began to doubt the concept in general after just running basic Mhammer on the units, and the overall list. You're greatly exaggerating the soundness of your reasoning, as well as reverting back into misleading commentary. In short, it seems that you have gotten past ignoring, and moved onto constant repetition of the same flimsy logic. Your concepts have not changed, and you have made literally no modifications to your statements, you just move words around and repeat the same thing.

At this point I am not entirely sure I can take your posts seriously, they are no longer adding anything to this discussion.

Wrexasaur wrote:I like meltas and they tend to be in every list I make, when possible. 20 meltas in one list, especially in the hands of what is mainly going to be a measly BS3 platform, is funny but not effective.

If BS3 is the only thing that matters, then you're basically saying that the guard as an army are "funny but can't be effective".

You're simply not reading what I have written at this point, nor does it appear that you do so for many other posters.

BS3 is perfectly fine for multi-shot weapons, but I avoid using meltas with BS3, because I usually have a much better place to put it. You like meltas and spam them, which is something I consider a very bad plan. A fun army, but not one that is competitive to the point of significance. SoB can make pretty good use of meltas, but the best lists tend to not focus entirely on the melta, most likely because most everything is T3 and will get shot into pieces at range.

I don't know that much about SoB though, it would seem that they are one of the only armies that could pull anything like what you suggest.

I'll continue to read this thread, but it may have reached it's expiration date.

You'll have to excuse me because I'm not too keen on reading through this entire argument, but is the summary essentially:

Aliaros does not see the value of popping transports and chooses to ignore the problem until it is present and pressing matter? Instead focusing points that most people use long range AT into more bodies?

Everyone else is arguing that you should pop them with point invested in long range AT?

@ Sgt. Sunshine

At this point it is basically melta-spam vs. a sensible combination of many types of weapons.

I do not think meltas suck, quite the opposite actually. Spamming 20 of them just strikes me as completely silly. Some are arguing that more Lr-AV (AT, whatever, guns that pop vehicles at long ranges) equals more better, but for the most part no one has suggested that relying entirely on Lr-AV is a good idea either.

Mix your weapons up, and try to find the best combination. Different types of weapons fill different gaps, try to fill as many gaps as possible, without compromising the effectiveness of your list.

We are in permanent disagreement land now, and I don't think that Ailaros has any intent of trying to get us out of here...

Oh, well I mean I guess I can see the logic in spamming meltas...I just don't think it's very good logic. I mean vehicles tend to have weapons that have a longer range than 12 inches. Even if you have the objective they'll just whittle you down until there's only bob left and let's face it you don't want bob guarding your objective. We all know he's a bit of a chicken and once he sees a rhino coming up and doing a drive by with marines inside he's going to croak.

What a flamefest of a thread also quite alot of going on.

I can see what Ailros is saying- that if you have the tools to deal with what in the transports when they arrive, then you don't need to worry about blowing transport - which I'm happy with him saying. He does have a point there (Ailros does quite often, trying to find it can be the problem ). However -

Ailaros wrote:Why? You've disposed of your opponent's wrapper before they were going to throw it away anyways, but the actual unit is still there.

My Transports are not just wrappers. They are mobile wrappers, mobile wrappers with gunslits in them. If transports did 1 thing, 1) up forward towards enemy lines 2) deposit troops 3) ???? 4) Profit/victory!, then i agree with Ailros's logic. My transports games are Never so simple. The blocking of LOS/movement, bunkering up objectives, being able to regroup spread forces... Playing with my transports is the most complicated part of my turn i find The importance of that wrapper is this- my meltagunner can move 6" and shoot. My rhino can move 12", unload him 2" and shoot. I'm sorry, but adding 14" to my range is simply awesome, and being able to stop that is painful to my game plans- hence it hurts my ability to win- hence it helps you to win. Taking out transports at range means that transports point have been wasted AND that the owner must come up with a new plan for the unit inside.


In summary- I agree with Ailros. Having the tools to deal with what comes out of the transports is essential, but just as essential is the tools to stop some/all of those transports from coming, which forces the enemy to come peice meal.

Back to the original question-->How do you stop transports?

This is how I stop transports, as a BA player, without suiciding my melta squads into enemy territory.

Once the enemy mobility is neutralized, BA have an excellent advantage in this department.

360 points total, but, it stops the advance of a good chunk of the enemy, is also good against elite troops or monstrous creatures, and can tie up many units in CC.

Nice Dreads. How did you do the autocannons?

It looks like he used Aegis line Quad autocannons

yeah, looks right

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:So... you kill the transport, then the units that may have "STRONG SHORT RANGE WEAPONS" are within 6" of your troops.

But you get to shoot them with your short ranged weapons in the same turn you blow up their transports. It's not "you blow up their transports and they attack" it's "you blow up their transports and then attack them. the remnants then attack you back".

Wrexasaur wrote: You like meltas and spam them, which is something I consider a very bad plan. A fun army, but not one that is competitive to the point of significance.

Why is it bad? You're taking effective weapons and using them against their proper targets. I haven't really heard anything with regards to why it's worth it to pay a premium to stop your opponents transports over there other than some misguided fear that if you don't, you auto-lose, and if you do, you auto-win.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Aliaros does not see the value of popping transports and chooses to ignore the problem until it is present and pressing matter? Instead focusing points that most people use long range AT into more bodies?

Everyone else is arguing that you should pop them with point invested in long range AT?

The "Everyone else" is basically a correct assessment, although no one has really explained why their position is best, only that mine is silly.

As for mine, it would be more accurate to say that I ignore transports AT RANGE, because I know they have to come to me to win. The best weapons are short ranged, therefore I advocate taking the best weapons available, knowing that their chief disadvantage is actually ameliorated by my opponent.

Wrexasaur wrote:At this point it is basically melta-spam vs. a sensible combination of many types of weapons.

Actually, it's more of a taking a mix of good weapons vs. taking a mix of good weapons and bad weapons debate.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote: I mean vehicles tend to have weapons that have a longer range than 12 inches. Even if you have the objective they'll just whittle you down until there's only bob left and let's face it you don't want bob guarding your objective.

So this is one of the things you've missed by not reading. Transports need to come to you, which means that they're not actually whittling anything. If you're talking about other stuff than transports whittling you down, then take good guns to handle those other threats.

Jihallah wrote:My Transports are not just wrappers. They are mobile wrappers, mobile wrappers with gunslits in them. If transports did 1 thing, 1) up forward towards enemy lines 2) deposit troops 3) ???? 4) Profit/victory!, then i agree with Ailros's logic. My transports games are Never so simple. The blocking of LOS/movement, bunkering up objectives, being able to regroup spread forces... Playing with my transports is the most complicated part of my turn i find

So, if your transports are completing their objectives, they're moving towards my stuff. If they move towards my stuff, they're toast on a stick.

If they're NOT moving towards my stuff, they're not completing an objective, which means they're not taking actions which make them win the game. In which case, why should I care?

Jihallah wrote:In summary- I agree with Ailros. Having the tools to deal with what comes out of the transports is essential, but just as essential is the tools to stop some/all of those transports from coming, which forces the enemy to come peice meal.

Yes, but WHY do you need to take them out at range when you can take better weapons to kill them up close?

Just offing a transport here or there does not make you win. It just slows down some of their units a bit. Showing up not 100% at the same time does not automatically equal fail somehow. Likewise, if attacking all at once was a big deal, opponents can always slow their transports down a bit. In either case, it doesn't seem like you're really doing a whole lot to them, at least, not enough to justify the expense.

Ailaros wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:So... you kill the transport, then the units that may have "STRONG SHORT RANGE WEAPONS" are within 6" of your troops.

But you get to shoot them with your short ranged weapons in the same turn you blow up their transports. It's not "you blow up their transports and they attack" it's "you blow up their transports and then attack them. the remnants then attack you back"

Ok. They see you have nothing but melta guns.

Then they can EASILY disembark and fire/assault your lines without you doing jack.

Alternatively, they pop smoke, lookey 50% chance that melta you're using does nothing.

Also, look, a unit with one melta, 1/2 to hit. 1/12 to do nothing, 1/12 to glance. 10/12 to penetrate.

Then all you get is a little +1. Melta guns are not as amazing as you put them out to be, unless you're stuffing multiple meltas in squads, you're not reliably killing anything with guardsmen.

Assuming that you will have enough to outnumber them enough to have nothing but guard with meltas and flamers killing units as well as their transports is being dense. So, explain what you will use other than special weapons.

Transports, main function...:

"See those enemies? Build me something to get me from here to there unscathed..." Most armies transports have something in them that can handle those guardsmen in CC.

Vassal challenge issued about now-ish. Links in my signature.

I will totally watch that game.

Ailaros wrote:Actually, it's more of a taking a mix of good weapons vs. taking a mix of good weapons and bad weapons debate.

LOL. Meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas... meltas, flamer.

I think we have a different view of what counts as transports. I'm sure this has been covered before. If not I mean that your theory is taking into regards chimera like transports correct? I'm also including things like Razorbacks, Land Raiders, Vendettas, and other goodies. Yes, they may be tanks and flyers but anything that can hold a body is a transport in my mind.

Also, I'm not sure what you're defining as a "best" weapon. I think the plasma cannon is a pretty awesome weapon, but for point efficiency it isn't the best. In fact couldn't you consider the lascannon as up there in terms of "best" due to it's 48" range high strength and AP? These are just examples so I'm just wondering how you value a weapon as the "best" weapon.

I personally don't think there really is one as they all have something that makes them worth taking in different situations.

Oh, and the reason I support the other side of the fence and not yours is that your argument seems to be something along the lines of "I will only take rock and will be amazing at smashing all the scissors" while everyone else is essentially "why not take one of each and be average at smashing all of them equally?" I know this is probably not what you were aiming for, but at this point this is how I would dumb down the arguments.

However, due to the fact I'm too lazy to read the rest of the argument. I'll get too it sometime, but I feel like it's a lot of repetition.

EDIT: Forgot to mention this one thing. Firing at multiple ranges increases the probability of dealing with the problem earlier on. Trying to pop a transport at the last second is good and all, but if you fail you're screwed. No matter what you say the odds are there is still that chance of you not managing to pop it. Engaging targets earlier forces more rolls and a higher probability of raining on your opponent's parade without being...I guess I'll use the military term "Danger Close".

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:
Define "a lot of points". Most heavy weapons cost about as much as a meltagun or plasma gun.

But if weapon 1 is half as effective as weapon 2, then you need to take twice as many. More importantly, you need to spend twice as much on carriers just to do the same job as weapon 1 with a single carrier.

This isn't what I was saying. You've already bought the carriers, so you only need to spend ~10 points to get a heavy weapon also.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote: Pick an army, pick a unit or group of units that provide effective anti-transport power, and propose an alternative unit or group of units using your proposed doctrine that will deal with transports and their contents at close range. I'm interested to see what your doctrine proposes in specifics instead of vague generalities.

Sure, so take a guard 3x autocannon HWS against a guard 3x meltagun SWS.

The math of a BS3 autocannon means that you need to shoot at a AV12 transport for 20 turns with a single autocannon to stop it. In this case, you get 3, so a single autocannon HWS takes about 6-7 turns to reliably blow up the transport.

Of course, what you're really looking to do is down it by turn 2, not turn 7, which means that you need to buy 4 of them in order to achieve the desired effect. Not only does this create some cluttered deployment zones, but it also costs 300 points.

Meanwhile, 3x meltaguns will take down that transport in 2 turns. It costs 65 points to do the same job that it takes autocannons 300 points to do. This means that you can take 2 more meltagun squads and have triple the anti-transport power for the same number of points.

Furthermore, those meltaguns are also good against real tanks and heavier transports (like land raiders), while allowing you to insta-kill T4 multi-wounds and putting wounds on a MC faster.

This is an examle from the guard, as I don't know other armies' points costs. That said, I know that every army gets effective anti-transport weapons, so I know it's possible with them as well.

Please allow me to respectfully suggest that your calculator may need new batteries.

3 Autocannons: 6 shots * 50% hit rate * 33% penetration rate (vs armor 11) = 1. So 1 penetrating hit per 75 point squad is a reasonable expectation. Sometimes you'll get more, sometimes less. If armor is penetrated, results 2, 4, 5, and 6 stop the transport from moving. So the squad you described (somwhat similar to an autocannon Dreadnought) has about a 66% percent chance to do it's job each turn. Assume cover, and that's down to a 33% chance. You'll also get glancing hits, and odd turns of the dice can mean that weapon destroyed results do something for you also. Regardless, we'll run with the 33% effectiveness per squad. Take 3 squads for 225 points (although at this point you start shutting off areas where the opponent can get cover at all). Shut down 1 transport per turn. The opponent can hang out in the transport (good for you), or he can get out of the transport to run forward. Back to your turn, you now (on turn 2) get to pound that unit with long ranged fire that would not have been able to fire at enemy troops otherwise. Your autocannons move on to another transport, now much less likely to be in cover, and disable it for the turn (good chance of 2 transports disabled). Repeat with artillery.

225 points is pretty close to 4 infantry squads with meltas. You seem to be advocating special weapon squads with 3 meltas for 65 points, take three and 30 points for 195. 9 shots * 50* hit rate * 50% penetration rate (transports 13" away can still deliver assault troops, so no +d6) * 50% for cover (with no long range AT, smoke gets popped only when the transports move in) = a little bit better than 1 penetrating hit for your 9 squads of meltas (assuming 18 heavily armed guardsmen are still alive). 5/6 rolls on the chart are good, thanks to the AP1. Congratulations, you've done slightly better in one turn than autocannons could have, and you only had to assume that a handful of guardsmen survived a couple rounds of medium range weapons fire for 2 or 3 turns. Except for your trouble, you get 1 turn of fire (you won't get the second) as opposed to 2 or 3.

Ailaros: Wierd...I think I know you from 40KO...
Did you have a webizine way back? Because I remember the Ailarian Way of War and the shinannigans of the priest in the command squad.

Now...with 5th ed, I guess it switches things up.

I remember you talking about only moving when it's beneficial...which means hvy weapons would be the early concern for your squads, while meltas (great weapons) would be quite secondary/later game use.
______________________-

I would not say meltas are the 'best'/'better' gun for anti-tank purposes.
Not every transport (tanks lets say) is the same and some weapons are 'better' than others (ie Serpents vs. Rhinos).

I run with meltas and flamers mostly with my bikers. I run with multi-melta attack bikes for main anti-tank.
The meltas on biker troop squads end up as 'defensive' weapons when things get too close...so in a way, even with my speed and approachment, they are used if they get close to me.

My anti-transports are a combination of Meltas, MM, Fist, crack grenades, and even hvy bolters at times. I have the speed to place shots and get to where they can be used.

I miss longer ranged weapons, because there are times when with my speed I do not want to approach. Giving free reign for an opponent I don't want to get close to is giving up initiative and not setting the pace of the game. With no approachment, I can't take out elements of the opponent's long range assets attacking me.

Now, one can blame army composition, but I'm in the boat that 'any' list can win with more thought put into the usage rather than list building. All I'm saying is, that they have their place.
Meltas have been shown alot of love, but they are not without competitition from other weapons that have different strengths with similar roles.

Just the existance of the Avatar suggests me to diversify into getting something non-melta...but that is a just a minor detail.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Then they can EASILY disembark and fire/assault your lines without you doing jack.

Something they don't need transports for.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Alternatively, they pop smoke, lookey 50% chance that melta you're using does nothing.

Smoke hurts ALL ranged weapons, not just meltaguns. Furthermore, they dont' do anything to close combat options.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Vassal challenge issued about now-ish. Links in my signature.

How would a single game determine anything? There are so many complications of mission type, terrain placement, our capabilities to execute our plans, etc. etc. This wouldn't be a very controlled experiment at all, and thus wouldn't actually prove anything (other than in a very, very certain set of circumstances, one of us was a better player), at least not with regards to how to handle transports.

Being macho and whipping them out on the table and measuring isn't going to be useful to this discussion.

Wrexasaur wrote:LOL. Meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas, meltas... meltas, flamer.

Meltaguns, meltabombs, krak grenades, eviscerators, powerfists, demolisher cannons, MC's, etc.

Biophysical wrote:This isn't what I was saying. You've already bought the carriers, so you only need to spend ~10 points to get a heavy weapon also.

A single heavy weapon is not particularly effective. If you take more of them to create effectiveness, then you need to pay for the carriers as well.

Biophysical wrote:(although at this point you start shutting off areas where the opponent can get cover at all)

Unless they bring it with them, like with screening units, smoke, or SMF.

Biophysical wrote:Back to your turn, you now (on turn 2) get to pound that unit with long ranged fire that would not have been able to fire at enemy troops otherwise.

I'm not implying that you can't shoot long-range stuff at them if you take out the transports at range. I'm saying that you need to pay a premium in order to get your long range stuff to shoot at your opponent.

In a guard artillery-spam list, this might be worth it, but what about for everyone else? Why spend lots of points so that you can plink at them with heavy bolter fire when you can let them come into range and blow them apart with flamers and power weapons?

Biophysical wrote:225 points is pretty close to 4 infantry squads with meltas.

I would never advocate people take this, unless they had some SERIOUS constraints elsewhere in their list.

Biophysical wrote:Congratulations, you've done slightly better in one turn than autocannons could have, and you only had to assume that a handful of guardsmen survived a couple rounds of medium range weapons fire for 2 or 3 turns.

I agree, in your cherry-picked scenario they do pretty badly. That's why I would never put myself in your chosen scenario.

Sanctjud wrote:Wierd...I think I know you from 40KO... Because I remember the Ailarian Way of War and the shinannigans of the priest in the command squad

Yup. I posted my public game series there. I left, like most people who do, because of the terrible moderators.

Sanctjud wrote:Did you have a webizine way back?

I did, which you, yourself contributed to

Sanctjud wrote:Now...with 5th ed, I guess it switches things up.

I remember you talking about only moving when it's beneficial...which means hvy weapons would be the early concern for your squads, while meltas (great weapons) would be quite secondary/later game use.

It really did. More, better cover, everything moving so fast, and objectives being the only thing that matter anymore killed the gunline, and the old Ailarian way of war with it.

Sanctjud wrote:The meltas on biker troop squads end up as 'defensive' weapons when things get too close...so in a way, even with my speed and approachment, they are used if they get close to me.

Exactly, and getting close to you is the entire point of transports.

Sanctjud wrote:Giving free reign for an opponent I don't want to get close to is giving up initiative and not setting the pace of the game. With no approachment, I can't take out elements of the opponent's long range assets attacking me.

Definitely. Every army needs to have a way to approach an enemy, and every army has several ways. I think that's one of the problem with noobs, actually, is that they miss this very point.

You handle it with bikes, I handle it with outflanking, mass charges, and artillery, some people handle it with drop-pods.

Long-ranged weaponry means that you can pay to not need to rely so much on mobility, but it doesn't change the fact that mobility wins 5th ed. games, or that the best weapons require a little mobility to use.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:I think we have a different view of what counts as transports. I'm also including things like Razorbacks, Land Raiders, Vendettas, and other goodies. Yes, they may be tanks and flyers but anything that can hold a body is a transport in my mind.

Which all die pretty hard to proper close-ranged weaponry.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Also, I'm not sure what you're defining as a "best" weapon

I'm basing it off of the damage that it does per round of shooting. Sure, things like autocannons get more rounds, but I've been factoring that in.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:I personally don't think there really is one as they all have something that makes them worth taking in different situations.

Right, I'm not advocating for just one weapon, I'm advocating for just one class of weapons. Even though there isn't just one best that should only ever be taken always doesn't mean that all weapons are created equal for handling transports.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Firing at multiple ranges increases the probability of dealing with the problem earlier on.

But why does it matter when you kill them so long as you kill them?

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Trying to pop a transport at the last second is good and all, but if you fail you're screwed.

Solid list-building greatly helps, and you can do a lot to help in the movement phase to mitigate this problem.

That said, if you're luck is really that bad, then you're not going to be taking out the transports regardless.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:"why not take one of each and be average at smashing all of them equally?"

Because having weapons that can engage multiple targets in this game by and large weakens them. People may couch these weapons behind pleasant words like "flexibility" and "versatility", but it doesn't change the cold hard facts.

The fact is that "versatile" weapons, do a poor job with ANY target that they engage. This means, that against any given target on any given turn, you're not going to be doing the damage you need to what you're shootig at.

This can be alleviated by spamming lots of them. While this does mean that you're actually effective, you have to spend a lot of points to spam them. This means that you're draining serious resources from your list in order to get a weapon to do something that it's not good at.

When it comes to transports, we take it one step further. Is it worth it to drain said resources in order to kill transports when they're way over there, or is it better to use the points efficiently to kill them when they're over here? All of my arguments so far have been for the latter. I haven't heard much with regards to support for the former, and that which I've heard I haven't heard explained past a single level of inquiry (such as "to what end?").

Another way I can think to re-frame this whole argument is like this:

Your opponent has scary units. These units must get close to you in order to win (except for guard artillery on KP missions). After all, if a unit of khorne bezerkers is hiding in the corner, why do I need to care about them?

There are many ways to get those units close, including transports, but what is really important is the units they're carrying. You can't shoot said units when they're in transports. However, you can blow up the transports AND their cargo very easily at close range. As such, they're doing you a favor by getting their units into range of your guns for you. If they're not, then they're the equivalent of bezerkers hiding in a corner that I don't need to care about.

Now, you could instead pay a premium to slow them down slightly, and give your long ranged guns an extra turn to shoot at them. The problem is that long-ranged guns shooting for two turns aren't as good as short-ranged guns shooting for one (one again, excluding guard artillery spam, which makes them roughly equal). Why would you want to spend more points in order to have worse guns do less damage?

But what about those units that DON'T need to get close to you? Well, you need to get close to them. This, however, is out of the scope of a discussion for dealing with transports, which DO need to come to you to be useful for victory.

Ailaros wrote:

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Then they can EASILY disembark and fire/assault your lines without you doing jack.

Something they don't need transports for.

O.K. Though the transports helps their ability to do this, and the fact that you think you're melta guns and close combat weapons are going to do it is not a sound tact.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Alternatively, they pop smoke, lookey 50% chance that melta you're using does nothing.

Smoke hurts ALL ranged weapons, not just meltaguns. Furthermore, they dont' do anything to close combat options.

Ok, though they only need to do it once against a melta, other guns have multiple turns to fire. Some of which, the transports will not be smoked.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Vassal challenge issued about now-ish. Links in my signature.

How would a single game determine anything? There are so many complications of mission type, terrain placement, our capabilities to execute our plans, etc. etc. This wouldn't be a very controlled experiment at all, and thus wouldn't actually prove anything (other than in a very, very certain set of circumstances, one of us was a better player), at least not with regards to how to handle transports.

Why are mission types a complication? Terrain placement can be handled by a third party, and our capabilites to execute plans, you're either insulting me, or glorifying me, which I don't think is happening.

But what about those units that DON'T need to get close to you? Well, you need to get close to them. This, however, is out of the scope of a discussion for dealing with transports, which DO need to come to you to be useful for victory.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:This isn't what I was saying. You've already bought the carriers, so you only need to spend ~10 points to get a heavy weapon also.

A single heavy weapon is not particularly effective. If you take more of them to create effectiveness, then you need to pay for the carriers as well.

Fair enough, you don't see value in fewer amounts of autocannons, others do.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:(although at this point you start shutting off areas where the opponent can get cover at all)

Unless they bring it with them, like with screening units, smoke, or SMF.

All of those things work against meltaguns also.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:Back to your turn, you now (on turn 2) get to pound that unit with long ranged fire that would not have been able to fire at enemy troops otherwise.

I'm not implying that you can't shoot long-range stuff at them if you take out the transports at range. I'm saying that you need to pay a premium in order to get your long range stuff to shoot at your opponent.

In a guard artillery-spam list, this might be worth it, but what about for everyone else? Why spend lots of points so that you can plink at them with heavy bolter fire when you can let them come into range and blow them apart with flamers and power weapons?

Because paying 10 points/squad for a few squads to have anti-transport weapons is not that many points. Heavy weapons let infantry squads hurt someone in the first few turns of the game, and are not very high in points so don't ding you too bad if you decide movement is more important.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:225 points is pretty close to 4 infantry squads with meltas.

I would never advocate people take this, unless they had some SERIOUS constraints elsewhere in their list.

Well, you talk a lot about big power weapon blob squads, so that's what I pointed out. As you disingenuously failed to note, however, the math example I later provided was assuming SWS full of meltas, which you seem to be advocating. The folly of relying on several small groups of T3 5+ save troops that must be within 6" of the enemy to outperform "ineffective" weapons is something I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:Congratulations, you've done slightly better in one turn than autocannons could have, and you only had to assume that a handful of guardsmen survived a couple rounds of medium range weapons fire for 2 or 3 turns.

I agree, in your cherry-picked scenario they do pretty badly. That's why I would never put myself in your chosen scenario.

The scenario I described was not cherry-picked, it was Rhino tactics 101. If the Rhino passenger's effective threat range is greater than the threat range of a meltagun (hint, it is), then the Rhino passengers will get to determine the battle. You repeatedly have advocated using melta-guns to defend objectives, I just laid out how a transported squad could easily engage meltaguns defending an objective. Please describe how you would defend, or take and objective from transport mounted troops.

You argument is certainly built on a very specific scenario. Realitically speaking most people would sit back and just dakka you to death with their longer range guns. However, since we're talking about a situation like that I feel like I have to agree with you only because you're so specific to the situation.

Would I base my list on your theory? Not really, but it's something to consider for certain units I suppose. Still I'd like to see your argument expanded to take in other factors. For example, the main basis of the argument is that transports need to run up to you to fulfill their goal that most of them have. What would you do if their transports merely waited on their own objectives and waited for you to get into their threatening reach?

I know this isn't part of YOUR scenario, but in a real life situation you should probably include that. After all theory is nice and all, but you have to test your theory as well to prove a proper point.

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote: the fact that you think you're melta guns and close combat weapons are going to do it is not a sound tact.

Why not?

Inquisitor_Syphonious wrote:Ok, though they only need to do it once against a melta, other guns have multiple turns to fire. Some of which, the transports will not be smoked.

How many turns do you really think you're going to get against a transport rush?

Biophysical wrote:Fair enough, you don't see value in fewer amounts of autocannons, others do.

This is part of my point. Please explain why a couple of autocannons are worth their price.

Biophysical wrote:Because paying 10 points/squad for a few squads to have anti-transport weapons is not that many points.

We've been over this. You also have to pay for the carrier. Even if you didn't (which I don't see how), you're still needing to take multiples, which still makes it more expensive.

Biophysical wrote:The folly of relying on several small groups of T3 5+ save troops that must be within 6" of the enemy to outperform "ineffective" weapons is something I'll leave as an exercise to the reader.

Because you can't articulate it?

This doesnt' seem folly to me at all.

Biophysical wrote:If the Rhino passenger's effective threat range is greater than the threat range of a meltagun (hint, it is), then the Rhino passengers will get to determine the battle.

This is not an advantage special to transports. You can even acieve this on foot, much less other mobility means.

Said, another way, you will have to deal with this problem whether your opponent has units in transports that are blown up at long range or not.

Biophysical wrote:You repeatedly have advocated using melta-guns to defend objectives, I just laid out how a transported squad could easily engage meltaguns defending an objective.

But you're missing the point. I'm not advocating using meltaguns against squads. Of course meltaguns are going to be bad against boyz falling out of a trukk - the meltaguns are there for the trukk.

Biophysical wrote:Please describe how you would defend, or take and objective from transport mounted troops.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote: What would you do if their transports merely waited on their own objectives and waited for you to get into their threatening reach?

Sure, I can go over this again.

How to defend an objective against transport mounted troops? Well, if I'm sitting on the objective, then they need to come to me. Once they close range, I nail them with a variety of close-ranged options. If they stay far away, then they're not claiming the objective, are they?

How do I take objectives against mounted troops? The same way I take objectives from anything. He's got to sit on the objective in order to claim it, which means it's no different from just another unit sitting on the objective, transport or not.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote: Realitically speaking most people would sit back and just dakka you to death with their longer range guns.

How does sitting back and shooting win you an objectives game?

Sgt.Sunshine wrote: After all theory is nice and all, but you have to test your theory as well to prove a proper point.

If you can design an experiment that takes all possible variables into control, I'd be interested. That said, you can't design an experiment that takes player skill into account, so I earnestly think this is impossible.