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.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:The LRC has about the same firepower as a tac squad. 12 TL bolter shots will net you about 11 hits. One less then 9 marines. It'll net you 5 wounds.

The TL-AC will net you 4 wounds (not counting rending, too much math...) and the MM will kill... something mechanized.

So total, the LRC will net 9 savable wounds. So about 3 dead MEQ. Not bad.

Now awaiting for someone to say that the LRR would of killed the entire squad...

And how many terminators will the redeemer kill? Not everything in the game is 3+ save. Yeah, the redeemer works wonders against the MEQ if it can get there. However, the crusaders effectiveness increases drastically the lower the armor save of your opponent is. The Redeemer will always kill the same number of models regardless. The crusader is just murder vs Ork, IG, or other soft save models. Also believe it or not the extra 4 seats the crusader has does matter. My current SW list has 5 termies and three PAWG in a single unit. Only the Crusader has the seat room for that.

Assuming 6 hits per template and only one cannon firing, you'll net 5 wounds and about less then one terminator. The LRC will kill the same amount. The AC is being left out since it'll effect both equally.

@ AbaddonFidelis: Most of what you wrote is completely incorrect. So much so that it does not even warrant direct criticism, as anyone reading it can plainly see that its wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on those points.

However, here is by far the most objectionable thing you wrote.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I'm arguing that its not a very good gun platform. Look if you dont see that the two twin linked lascannons arent very good at killing vehicles then I'm not going to try to argue the point with you. Its just so.
Better is not subjective - the game is based on math its completely, 100%, entirely, objective. God I get tired of you "subjective" people. How much more objective can it possibly be? Its numbers just do the math.

Again you cut out half of what I am saying. The strength of the LR variants are the fact that they are BOTH at the same time. That's right, they are both a gun platform AND a transport. You don't have to choose which to do with it, because it can do both simultaneously. How can you possibly say two twin-linked lascannons are not good at killing vehicles? That is mind-boggling.

What weapons are you proposing have a better chance at killing vehicles? The TL assault cannons on the other variants do offer slightly better chances, but there is only 1 of them and it has half the range. The flamestorm cannons certainly are not better at killing vehicles.

Better is subjective, because it requires a specified goal. In order to be better objectively, they have to be better in all possible situations. There are some situations where the flamestorm will be better, like you perfect example of against MEQs, and examples where the TL lascannons are better, like any opponent not in template range or against vehicles.

I get tired of you "black and white" people. You see things as binary, either one is the "best" or it is trash. You need to see that there are all manner of gray in between. Math is a tool to tell you what the expected result for a situation is going to be. The problem is that there is a myriad of situations to consider, and I have never seen the math that would actually take them all into account. You seem to have access to this math, can you post a link?

well Dracos I really dont feel like going round and rond with you. If at the end of the day we dont agree I can live with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The only time you're ever going to get maximum effect from that Flamestorm Cannon is when you pop a transport, then manage to get that thing into position and flame everybody while they're packed into a nice template formation.

Nobody's going to sit there and let you flame an entire squad. Unless your opponents are idiots they're going to spread out and you'll only get a few guys with that cannon anyway.

If I pop the transport on the same turn I deploy the flame storm cannon they wont have any choice about it. twin linked meltaguns have a way of exploding vehicles. Besides that not everything I want to flame is in a transport. Bugs for instance are totally incapable of hiding in a transport. Blood Angels assault marines (with jump packs) and Thunderwolves also cannot ride transports. So basically yes the transports are an added layer of defense for them but no it doesnt invalidate the weapon.
AF

I have to toss my hat in with Draco. Quite honestly, just like in real life, nothing is black and white. There are so many things to consider that are not just mathhammer either.

For example, a fluff player running a Salamanders army might find the Crusader 'better' for fluff reasons, while not considering in game performance.

A modeller or painter might find a specific Land Raider variant better for ease of assembly, or ease of painting. (I've never built a Land Raider so I have no idea ).

Not to mention everything Draco said earlier.....Unless you're comparing units with vastly different points value. (e.g. a Space Marine is def better than a Guardsmen) and even that is open to debate depending on a host of other factors.

Edit:

AbaddonFidelis wrote: If I pop the transport on the same turn I deploy the flame storm cannon they wont have any choice about it. twin linked meltaguns have a way of exploding vehicles. Besides that not everything I want to flame is in a transport. Bugs for instance are totally incapable of hiding in a transport. Blood Angels assault marines (with jump packs) and Thunderwolves also cannot ride transports. So basically yes the transports are an added layer of defense for them but no it doesnt invalidate the weapon.

Uh, no. You have to target the same unit with all your weapons. If you announce your firing your multimelta at my Chimera as well as the uberflamer and your mm blows up my Chimera, then oh no you wasted your Flamestorm shot. Unless Machine Spirit lets you change the target of a weapon after you've started rolling, I doubt you can do that.

Dracos wrote:I get tired of you "black and white" people. You see things as binary, either one is the "best" or it is trash. You need to see that there are all manner of gray in between.

Yeah, that ain't gonna happen.

Still, I'd like to hear why Lascannons aren't good at killing vehicles. Sorry, "twin-linked" lascannons.

Edited for spelling errors. Time to lay off the beer.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:Assuming 6 hits per template and only one cannon firing, you'll net 5 wounds and about less then one terminator. The LRC will kill the same amount. The AC is being left out since it'll effect both equally.

Actually, that depends entirely on how many terminators there are. The crusader is better at killing terminators than the redeemer is when the number of target models goes down. What if a termi squad only has 3 guys left? The flame storm cannon will hit 3 guys, probably wound three guys, and probably will not kill any. The hurricane bolters will still hit 10 times, cause 5 wounds and has a really good chance at downing 1 of them.

Its a lot like the old discussions (back in 4th ed) that used to be about Bloodletters vs Damonettes in which will kill more.

ChrisWWII wrote:I have to toss my hat in with Draco. Quite honestly, just like in real life, nothing is black and white. There are so many things to consider that are not just mathhammer either.

For example, a fluff player running a Salamanders army might find the Crusader 'better' for fluff reasons, while not considering in game performance.

A modeller or painter might find a specific Land Raider variant better for ease of assembly, or ease of painting. (I've never built a Land Raider so I have no idea ).

well I'm just talking about the tactical value of this unit or that. the question was which is better. I assume he means in game terms. If he means whats more fluffy or whats more fun to model then I have NFI its entirely up to him. Other than that though it's all odds - 99% of the possible situations in the game are covered by the rules in your codex or main rule book in pretty good detail. Just run the numbers and you'll know what's most likely to happen, and hence have an answer to the question "in game terms which is better." The only thing you really cant know from the rule books is the meta. I mean its not subjective at all. Its numbers. Math is one of the few things known to man that is entirely objective. Its like gravity. It couldnt be less subjective.

chriswwII wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote: If I pop the transport on the same turn I deploy the flame storm cannon they wont have any choice about it. twin linked meltaguns have a way of exploding vehicles. Besides that not everything I want to flame is in a transport. Bugs for instance are totally incapable of hiding in a transport. Blood Angels assault marines (with jump packs) and Thunderwolves also cannot ride transports. So basically yes the transports are an added layer of defense for them but no it doesnt invalidate the weapon.

Uh, no. You have to target the same unit with all your weapons. If you announce your firing your multimelta at my Chimera as well as the uberflamer and your mm blows up my Chimera, then oh no you wasted your Flamestorm shot. Unless Machine Spirit lets you change the target of a weapon after you've started rolling, I doubt you can do that.

Machine spirit allows me to shoot at two different targets. I dont have to announce both at once. I roll 1 see what the result is then choose the other. Also I'm assuming the presence of other elements of my army. Like a bike squad rocking 4 meltaguns, for instance. The Land Raiders meltagun may or may not kill the transport. doesnt really matter.
AF




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
Still, I'd like to hear why Lascannons aren't good at killing vehicles.

they're outclassed by meltaguns, which are
A cheaper
B more damaging
C more numerous
D better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

chriswwII wrote: If I pop the transport on the same turn I deploy the flame storm cannon they wont have any choice about it. twin linked meltaguns have a way of exploding vehicles. Besides that not everything I want to flame is in a transport. Bugs for instance are totally incapable of hiding in a transport. Blood Angels assault marines (with jump packs) and Thunderwolves also cannot ride transports. So basically yes the transports are an added layer of defense for them but no it doesnt invalidate the weapon.

Uh, no. You have to target the same unit with all your weapons. If you announce your firing your multimelta at my Chimera as well as the uberflamer and your mm blows up my Chimera, then oh no you wasted your Flamestorm shot. Unless Machine Spirit lets you change the target of a weapon after you've started rolling, I doubt you can do that.

Machine spirit allows me to shoot at two different targets. I dont have to announce both at once. I roll 1 see what the result is then choose the other. Also I'm assuming the presence of other elements of my army. Like a bike squad rocking 4 meltaguns, for instance. The Land Raiders meltagun may or may not kill the transport. doesnt really matter.
AF

You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

Because you're talking out of your posterior.

Again, if your understanding of the game is "MOAR MELTA! SCOND TURN ASSAULT FTW" I don't know where you get your condescending tone.

Your inability to even fathom the idea that the pattern of Land Raider to take is the one that best fits your army, and that some armies get more out of a Phobos pattern is mindboggling.

Melta guns are better at close range. But some IG non-mech builds are built around long range firepower, which is not what the Melta brings to the table. In that case the lascannon is better quite simply because it can hurt an enemy vehicle from further away, even if it has a lesser chance of killing it. They may be more numerous, but if your that close to an opponent how long is it going to be before they charge you and tie you up in combat. How long before you get wiped out by shooting? The individual melta shot might be better, but how many shots does it get?

[Leman Russ]----6"----|Melta is better|----6"-----|Melta and Lascannon about equal|------------------------------36"------------------|Lascannon better|

^This diagram illustrates my opinion quite well I think.

The meltagun is awesome, but it's not the end all be all of anti tank firepower.

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

Because you're talking out of your posterior.

Again, if your understanding of the game is "MOAR MELTA! SCOND TURN ASSAULT FTW" I don't know where you get your condescending tone.

Your inability to even fathom the idea that the pattern of Land Raider to take is the one that best fits your army, and that some armies get more out of a Phobos pattern is mindboggling.

Just get tired of defending the same points over and over. Its mathematically true that meltaguns are better at killing vehicles than lascannons are. The whole conversation is dumb. If you think (nonguard) lascannons are better you dont know what your talking about. end of story. So yeah..... try being wrong less often..... and I'll condescend to you less often. Deal?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:Melta guns are better at close range. But some IG non-mech builds are built around long range firepower, which is not what the Melta brings to the table. In that case the lascannon is better quite simply because it can hurt an enemy vehicle from further away, even if it has a lesser chance of killing it. They may be more numerous, but if your that close to an opponent how long is it going to be before they charge you and tie you up in combat. How long before you get wiped out by shooting? The individual melta shot might be better, but how many shots does it get?

[Leman Russ]----6"----|Melta is better|----6"-----|Melta and Lascannon about equal|------------------------------36"------------------|Lascannon better|

^This diagram illustrates my opinion quite well I think.

The meltagun is awesome, but it's not the end all be all of anti tank firepower.

Yes guard are an exception to the melta-spam rule because of orders. The battlecannon has better range than the meltagun true but its not equivalent in damage potential - the 2d6 + scatter + half strength rule means its on the whole less likely to hit its target than a meltagun, also it is not ap1, which increases the effectiveness of the meltagun about 16-17%. Additionally the battlecannon is much more expensive than the meltagun. While 1 battlecannon will probably shoot more than 1 meltagun over the course of a game meltaguns are much more numerous because a squad can carry several and most squads can carry at least one. So if you total the number of melta shots and battlecannon shots in an average of 10 space marine games and 10 guard games I think you'll find that the meltaguns have a much higher rate of fire. They can get knocked out in assaults true but the russ can too and in any there are plenty more meltaguns, its not all based on 1 squad. AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

Because you're talking out of your posterior.

Again, if your understanding of the game is "MOAR MELTA! SCOND TURN ASSAULT FTW" I don't know where you get your condescending tone.

Your inability to even fathom the idea that the pattern of Land Raider to take is the one that best fits your army, and that some armies get more out of a Phobos pattern is mindboggling.

Just get tired of defending the same points over and over. Its mathematically true that meltaguns are better at killing vehicles than lascannons are. The whole conversation is dumb. If you think (nonguard) lascannons are better you dont know what your talking about. end of story. So yeah..... try being wrong less often..... and I'll condescend to you less often. Deal?
AF

Nope, because you're missing a fundamental point. But it's okay. Again, for the third time, what are the odds of killing a tank with a melta gun from say... 40 inches away? If you're defending the same point over and over again, I think you should look inward for the person who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Consider also that its an objective based game 2/3 of the time which means fighting for space, generally at close quarters. hence the meltagun means that enemy armor either has to come close and risk being destroyed or stay away from the objectives, which is win/win for the meltagun player. the lascannon or battlecannon however derives no advantage from being close to its target and may actually lose efficiency bc it is harder for vehicles that mount it to move and shoot to full effect than it is for infantry squads to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain
I've already answered the range point. On this thread and others. The problem isnt that I cant see your point. The problem is that you cant be bothered to read my responses. Anyway I dont feel like getting into a hissy fight with you (anymore than I already have) we disagree you're wrong just suck it up. I'm moving on.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You know we've been playing 5th for over a year now its not news to anyone that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is it? Really we should be long past this discussion..... the real anti tank question is "whats the best way to get my meltagun to the target" or "what target should I shoot it at" not "what gun is better." That's a settled question. Sorry if anyone feels like I'm repeating myself. I am, really, but what I dont understand is "why do I have to?"
AF

Of course the meltagun gives you a better chance..... provided you are within 6". The range issue is a significant factor, which you have chosen to just ignore.

This goes back to the way you are looking at things as if the better mathhammer number means it is automatically better. Black and white, pass or fail. What you miss is that your melta having double the chance to destroy my vehicles means nothing if I can stop you from getting that close. Saying that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is just missing the big picture. Don't take me wrong, at range < or = 6", meltaguns win. But anything > 6" the meltagun is not better, and > 12" the lascannon is infinitely superior.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Consider also that its an objective based game 2/3 of the time which means fighting for space, generally at close quarters. hence the meltagun means that enemy armor either has to come close and risk being destroyed or stay away from the objectives, which is win/win for the meltagun player. the lascannon or battlecannon however derives no advantage from being close to its target and may actually lose efficiency bc it is harder for vehicles that mount it to move and shoot to full effect than it is for infantry squads to do so.

Did I miss a rule in the BRB that said you can't take meltas and lascannons?

And you know that you can put a Multi-melta on a Phobos pattern, right? The conversation isn't about the merits of meltas vs lascannons.

Dracos wrote:
This goes back to the way you are looking at things as if the better mathhammer number means it is automatically better. Black and white, pass or fail. What you miss is that your melta having double the chance to destroy my vehicles means nothing if I can stop you from getting that close. Saying that meltaguns are the better anti tank gun is just missing the big picture. Don't take me wrong, at range < or = 6", meltaguns win. But anything > 6" the meltagun is not better, and > 12" the lascannon is infinitely superior.

Also this. Again.

one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:The conversation isn't about the merits of meltas vs lascannons.

uhhh.... you're the one who got the ball rolling in that direction.
You said the phobos was good at killing tanks.
I said that job was better performed by other units bc lascannons arent that good at it.
You said what is better
I said meltaguns.

If you dont want to talk about it dont bring it up. I think the redeemer is the best land raider for the reasons I gave above. We can talk about that instead of your obsession with 2nd class anti tank guns whenever you want.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

While we are on objectives, after dropping off the payload and picking up a few stragglers, the phobos offers the most protection purely because it does not have to be within 24".

And AF, all shooting is done at once. you can not fire one weapon, see what happens, then decide to shoot again. You declare your targets before you fire. So no melta on a rhino then flaming the guys inside.

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Machine spirit allows me to shoot at two different targets. I dont have to announce both at once. I roll 1 see what the result is then choose the other.

That is incorrect. The shooting is done simultaneously.

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:While we are on objectives, after dropping off the payload and picking up a few stragglers, the phobos offers the most protection purely because it does not have to be within 24".

And AF, all shooting is done at once. you can not fire one weapon, see what happens, then decide to shoot again. You declare your targets before you fire. So no melta on a rhino then flaming the guys inside.

Where in the rulebook does it say I have to choose both targets before shooting? If its in the rules then hey I'm wrong - but I dont think its there.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:The conversation isn't about the merits of meltas vs lascannons.

uhhh.... you're the one who got the ball rolling in that direction.
You said the phobos was good at killing tanks.
I said that job was better performed by other units bc lascannons arent that good at it.
You said what is better
I said meltaguns.

If you dont want to talk about it dont bring it up. I think the redeemer is the best land raider for the reasons I gave above. We can talk about that instead of your obsession with 2nd class anti tank guns whenever you want.
AF

I said it's good at... get ready for this... killing tanks A-T R-A-N-G-E. Which is good if you are playing a S-H-O-O-T-Y army.

You brought up meltas, not me. But since you're taking this tack, you're clearly out of ideas. I accept your apology.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

Right, because all you get for that 250 is the lascannons. Who's talking crazy?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

xxBlazinGhostxx wrote:While we are on objectives, after dropping off the payload and picking up a few stragglers, the phobos offers the most protection purely because it does not have to be within 24".

And AF, all shooting is done at once. you can not fire one weapon, see what happens, then decide to shoot again. You declare your targets before you fire. So no melta on a rhino then flaming the guys inside.

Where in the rulebook does it say I have to choose both targets before shooting? If its in the rules then hey I'm wrong - but I dont think its there.
AF

A unit fires all of it's weapons at once. Page 67, vehicle Destroyed- Explodes states it explicitly.

Monster Rain wrote:
I said it's good at... get ready for this... killing tanks A-T R-A-N-G-E. Which is good if you are playing a S-H-O-O-T-Y army.

Would you just read the mission objectives? Just read them? What are you donig 2/3 of the time? Holding objectives. What does that require? For you to be on the objective. What will your opponent do to kick you off of the objective? Get on the objective. Your going to be fighting them up close get it? Thats why the range restriction doesnt matter.

Monster Rain wrote:
You brought up meltas, not me. But since you're taking this tack, you're clearly out of ideas. I accept your apology.

lol ok whatever.

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

So a Rhino is more resilient than a Land Raider now? Who's talking crazy?

ok..... I think we're done now. This conversation is obviously above your head. I mean what the hell are you even talking about? Honestly.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Next time I have a rule book nearby I'll look it up.

Here is why you can not melta a rhino and flame the tacticals inside.

The POTMS entry in the C:SM dex states that the extra weapon you fire is subject to normal rules for shooting.

Now in the BGB, the table on pg.15, which is a summary of shooting, says that when a unit fires:

1. Check LOS & pick a target, or in the LR's case, targets.

Now the squad in the rhino was NOT a target you could shoot at when you declared your targets. Therefore, you can not flame the tacticals inside after you used the MM to wreck it.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

LOL this is gold. You have this thing where you think every game plays out the same way. While you are charging your whole army at me, I'll maneuver around a bit to delay your engagement for as long as possible, and blast your army away with superior range. I won't even try to claim your objective, I'll just hold mine and wait until late game and contest yours.

Again, your overly simplistic view is shown again by saying the bit about the 250 points for a pair of twin linked lascannons. Honestly, talking with you is a waste of time. By now a discerning reader will be able to see why you are wrong.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
I said it's good at... get ready for this... killing tanks A-T R-A-N-G-E. Which is good if you are playing a S-H-O-O-T-Y army.

Would you just read the mission objectives? Just read them? What are you donig 2/3 of the time? Holding objectives. What does that require? For you to be on the objective. What will your opponent do to kick you off of the objective? Get on the objective. Your going to be fighting them up close get it? Thats why the range restriction doesnt matter.

Monster Rain wrote:
You brought up meltas, not me. But since you're taking this tack, you're clearly out of ideas. I accept your apology.

lol ok whatever.

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Dracos wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:one more time about meltaguns and range: meltaguns are better suited to the close quarters nature of objective missions. So dont say I didnt address that point. I have. Many times.

That is your "addressing" of the range issue, to simply say that 2/3s of the time it does not matter? In capture and control, there are 2 objectives that can be placed far apart. That is not a close quarters game at all. really, only 1 of the missions forces close quarters, seize ground.

Your analysis is overly simplistic, to the point that it detracts from the conversation.

If you charge at your opponents objective with less than your full resources you arent going to take it. 1/2 of your army against all of theirs. who do you think is going to win? You go all in and start worrying about holding the rear objective on turn 4 or 5. Its not that my analysis is too simplistic - its that I dont feel like going into every little detail, you need to figure some stuff out for yourself. I cant believe you think 250 points is a good price for a pair of twin linked lascannons. What a bunch of nonsense. You could have bought a whole squad for that, with transport, with melta weapons, which is both scoring and can fight in assaults and is more likely to kill the thing it shoots at and can fire to full effect while moving and more resilient to anti tank guns. You're talking crazy talk.
AF

So a Rhino is more resilient than a Land Raider now? Who's talking crazy?

ok..... I think we're done now. This conversation is obviously above your head. I mean what the hell are you even talking about? Honestly.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Next time I have a rule book nearby I'll look it up.

So you're arguing rules without a rule book?

And I responded to your post about resilience. I'm done feeding this troll. Good luck with your post count, and enjoy your last word.

pg 67 under the Destroyed-Explodes! result says that all models in a single unit fire simultaneously, meaning that all weapons on a Land Raider also fire simultaneously. Thus a Land Raider can't pop a tank then flame the squad that pops out, Power of the Machine Spirit is meaningless. However, it can assault the squad...not that that helps the Land Raider in any way shape or form.

ANd yes, I have to agree with Dracos and Monster. Charging in to engage in close range firefights and close combat is not the only tactic in an objectives game. You can easily hang back and shoot enemies as they move through the open, which is the tactic most shooty armies would prefer. Additionally, you have to note that a meltagun will only ever be able to kill one thing at a time. One Terminator, one Space marine, one tank, but a battle cannon has a chance of being able to kill much more with each shot.

Sure it won't pop tanks as reliably, but it'll slaughter squads easily while still having a decent chance at popping transports and other light to medium tanks. If you go pure melta spam then what happens if you face a horde army that doesn't have many tanks or transports? Joy that melta gun killed an ork boy, an Imperial Guardsmen, or a 'Gaunt. In the same phrase, the shot from a battle cannon could have a decent chance at doing vehicular damage, while at the same time being able to slaughter light infantry by the handful. To me this added flexibility forces me to think in terms other than pure math hammer.


Btw, Monster I just noticed this. Is your avatar Sauron leading a bunch of Stormtroopers? Holy that's awesome. Gondor is so totally screwed.

ChrisWWII wrote:Btw, Monster I just noticed this. Is your avatar Sauron leading a bunch of Stormtroopers? Holy that's awesome. Gondor is so totally screwed.

Thanks man!

The Uruk-Hai just weren't cutting it...