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.

TedNugent wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:When I'm playing my orks I love seeing tac marines without powerfists, makes it a no brainier to throw my nobz at em. losing the double wound model to instant death is quite annoying if i don’t' already have a few models with 1 wounds to eat the powerfist attack then i probably will have my nob bikers ride at something without instant death for them first.

Offhand - page 26 of the rulebook, "Units of Multi-Wound Models"

It says you're supposed to remove unwounded models in the case of allocating instant death wounds.

That's what you do with unsaved wounds within groups of identical models. You allocate wounds to the various groups before that step so you can allocate an instant death wound to a group consisting of one model that is down to its last wound.

AresX8 wrote:To add onto erikwfg:

These are some units that you'd want to assault to deny them, most commonly, Furious Charge:

Boyz
Berzerkers
Any Dark Eldar unit with 2 pain tokens
Blood Angel Assault Squads


Plus, if you fire your pistols, you get a decent amount of attacks per Tac Marine.

And I said what I said completely forgetting about pistols.

erikwfg wrote:

AresX8 wrote:To add onto erikwfg:

These are some units that you'd want to assault to deny them, most commonly, Furious Charge:

Boyz
Berzerkers
Any Dark Eldar unit with 2 pain tokens
Blood Angel Assault Squads


Plus, if you fire your pistols, you get a decent amount of attacks per Tac Marine.

And I said what I said completely forgetting about pistols.

gak, I forgot about pistols too.

Ryan_A wrote:

Jihallah wrote:
Listen, if you have bad luck with dice than thats no reason to get a powerfist, its time to stop using broken loaded dice. If more often than not your weapons are ganna do their job, then dont worry about insurance for insurance that isn't ganna do much anyway.

The point isn't bad luck as a reason to get a powerfist, my point is the sometimes the dreadnought/s that pod on the first turn don't die- not because you don't bring enough X Y or Z. Sometimes you can't bring all your weapons to bear due to other models, LOS, range. Sometimes the weapons you can fire are shrugged off by armor, cover saves or failing to roll a 5 or 6 on the chart. Make sense?

I am sorry, there is just SO MUCH WRONG with what you said.
"What is necessary to shoot a missile launcher?

1. You have to be in >1" and </=48" to the target unit
2. You must have been stationary in your previous movement phase
3. You must have LOS to your target
4. The target must not be locked in combat
5. You must not be locked in combat
6. It must be your turn"
1. Ya, thats a prositive, I can hit stuff from 48" away
2. Tac Squads are defensive on an objective, they DONT MOVE usually. So ya, thats not bad either.
3. Usually if you are on an objective, thats not hard.
4. Most targets that are coming to bare on you arn't.
5. This is about 90% of the time.
6. You don't understand that there is no advantage to assaults, sure you can attack on their turn, BUT THEY CAN ATTACK ON YOUR TURN TOO. So there is no advantage to assaults in that point.

"Then you will have one attack in your player turn, that has to get past a roll to hit and to wound and (yes we have to assume that) a cover save."
Yup, just the same as in assault, they can have armor saves and invul saves just as much as regular, and usually when they are coming towards an objective, they don't get cover.

"1. You have to be locked in combat with the target. Period."
Hahaha, wo there.
1. You have to be in direct contact, that is ganna happen a lot less than being within 1-48"
2. You must be stationary when in an assault.
3. You are trapped in assault
4. You must be in base contact, and thus there is a more likely chance you are ganna die.
5. You must be locked in combat
6. Your enemy gets that many more turns.

Tac units are not meant for assault, you'll get chewed up.

Your enemy gets to attack you that many more times, and your tacs are not good in close combat, and those guys who initiated it are.

"so if I assume 6 turns and 3 of them without combat, I will have 6 shots during a game vs. 12 powerfist strikes during a game."
Hahahahah! Your person is locked in combat and recieving hits, he isn't ganna last that long. And when you are sitting on an objective like your troops will be doing, you are ganna not be using thas powerfist.

I am sorry, but your tac troops are not ganna be in close combat, they are ganna be camping an objective (if you wanna cap it that is). Your troops are not assault troops, you are ganna get chewed up faster than you'll know, and that whole 1-6 vs 1 was a load.

Sorry I got upset, the 1-6 vs 1 thing kinda made me mad, it had no logical force, just because you lay out the basic principles of a heavy weapon doesn't mean they are not amazing, and you went way in depth with heavy weapon rules, and you TOTALLY GLOSSED OVER the rules for close combat and didn't include any limitations.

@Heavy weapons:

If you play on desert tables with careless opponents who let you see everything you want and dont dare to come near you to maybe force you to move, fine. Then go with missile launchers. But don't expect that to be representative...

In detail:

1. Ya, thats a prositive, I can hit stuff from 48" away
2. Tac Squads are defensive on an objective, they DONT MOVE usually. So ya, thats not bad either.
3. Usually if you are on an objective, thats not hard.
4. Most targets that are coming to bare on you arn't.
5. This is about 90% of the time.
6. You don't understand that there is no advantage to assaults, sure you can attack on their turn, BUT THEY CAN ATTACK ON YOUR TURN TOO. So there is no advantage to assaults in that point.

1. Yep thats positive.
2. Are they? if you have your maybe 3x10 tac marines defending and holding your position in order to shoot 3 (!) Missile launchers, fine. I am glad you didnt bring them at close range. 30 tacs sitting somewhere doing nothing but shooting a single missile each turn is a big waste.
3. Depends highly on the objective and the mission and the aggression of the opponent. Too simple a statement.
4. If I do everything to charge a tac squad and run across the board just to perform that task, I have either won or I am a fool. And if I am not intercepted in between, you are. Unfortunately close combats do exist. And they are not deniable.
5. Yep, just another hint for drop podding things or flanking units.
6. Yes of course they can also shoot in theirs while I cannot. Whats your point here? They can attack me in close combat with or without powerfist. They can shoot me in their turn while I cannot with or without missile launcher. But fortunately my powerfist will do something to them in both turns, so it has a higher impact than the missile launcher. That the opponents assault unit has a higher impact on me than the shooting one is clear, but this is independent from the fist.

Your enemy gets to attack you that many more times, and your tacs are not good in close combat, and those guys who initiated it are.

Uh? Why do you assume that? Thats just a subjective construction with no objective reference. First: Why should the initiate the assault? Second: Why is the opposing squad necessarily better. And now don't say that a single missile launcher must be considered good at shooting...

Hahahahah! Your person is locked in combat and recieving hits, he isn't ganna last that long. And when you are sitting on an objective like your troops will be doing, you are ganna not be using thas powerfist.

Personally I use my 195p to fight 4 turns and score 3 turns (turn 5-7) If you use them to score them 5-7 turns, fine. But I prefer to get the most out of my material.

"1. You have to be locked in combat with the target. Period."
Hahaha, wo there.
1. You have to be in direct contact, that is ganna happen a lot less than being within 1-48"
2. You must be stationary when in an assault.
3. You are trapped in assault
4. You must be in base contact, and thus there is a more likely chance you are ganna die.
5. You must be locked in combat
6. Your enemy gets that many more turns.

1. False. The powerfist is sufficient to be in 2" of a model of the same squad which is in direct contact with the intended target in order to be able to strike. Which is actually covered by my definition. And if you wanna score next to the opponent, it actually WILL happen. If it is more likely depends on table and opponent.
2. What do you mean by that? Normally I move when I assault someone. ANd there are pile in moves and so on.
3. Not as trapped as you may think. We have combat tactics at our disposal to break off from a lost combat. A combat we are winning, we normally want to stay in.
4. Uh? Death to assault attacks is more likely than death to shooting attacks? dunno where you got that from.
5. *sigh*
6. I am talking about the tacs and the plain damage output of a powerfist throughout the game. Not about the probability to survive. Or do you think, you are more durable in an assault without a fist?


If that sounds rude, I apologise, it is not intended to be. I just don't see your logic.

-Nazdreg- wrote: 1. False. The powerfist is sufficient to be in 2" of a model of the same squad which is in direct contact with the intended target in order to be able to strike. Which is actually covered by my definition. And if you wanna score next to the opponent, it actually WILL happen. If it is more likely depends on table and opponent.
2. What do you mean by that? Normally I move when I assault someone. ANd there are pile in moves and so on.
3. Not as trapped as you may think. We have combat tactics at our disposal to break off from a lost combat. A combat we are winning, we normally want to stay in.
4. Uh? Death to assault attacks is more likely than death to shooting attacks? dunno where you got that from.
5. *sigh*
6. I am talking about the tacs and the plain damage output of a powerfist throughout the game. Not about the probability to survive. Or do you think, you are more durable in an assault without a fist?


If that sounds rude, I apologise, it is not intended to be. I just don't see your logic.

I know it wasn't very accurate, I was just trying to show that a person cannot simply list 6 reasons heavy weapons are bad, and then chose only 1 thing to list for a powerfist, and then claim that because they only listed one thing for the power fist, that heavy weapons are 6Xs as bad. I know it wasn't directly stated but that was the basic reasoning I saw him making.

Not rude at all, thanks for the input.

Raxmei wrote:

TedNugent wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:When I'm playing my orks I love seeing tac marines without powerfists, makes it a no brainier to throw my nobz at em. losing the double wound model to instant death is quite annoying if i don’t' already have a few models with 1 wounds to eat the powerfist attack then i probably will have my nob bikers ride at something without instant death for them first.

Offhand - page 26 of the rulebook, "Units of Multi-Wound Models"

It says you're supposed to remove unwounded models in the case of allocating instant death wounds.

That's what you do with unsaved wounds within groups of identical models. You allocate wounds to the various groups before that step so you can allocate an instant death wound to a group consisting of one model that is down to its last wound.

yep.. this, you allocate wounds to like equipted models.. and any ork general worth the title is going to have every nob in the squad diversified.

point still stands though. I usually take a few throwaway nobz to eat wounds. if the most strategic squad is a tac squad with a power fist on an objective and there's another choice without a powerfist in the open I'm going after the non fist squad an dleaving the tac squad for the boyz... ro turn the nobz around and charge em once some wounds are there. I think fists are a pretty much requred upgrade but then again the ork tactics might just be going over at me about the need for a power claw... still in my marines list hthere's no way i wouldn't take it if i have the points

I got a question for everyone that says Tacs don't move, they camp on the back objective.

Do you just sit on one objective and hope to contest the others? You need to move your tacts forward to claim other objectives. Moving forward means you are closer to assault range.

jbunny wrote:I got a question for everyone that says Tacs don't move, they camp on the back objective.

Do you just sit on one objective and hope to contest the others? You need to move your tacts forward to claim other objectives. Moving forward means you are closer to assault range.

Objective missions stipulate that you must control 1 more objective than your opponent to win. Furthermore, this goal is only checked at the end of the game. You don't need to sit on an objective the whole game, meaning you can stand around blasting away until around turn 4 when you have to start moving.

Sometimes in multiobjective missions trying to claim more than one will be beneficial, sometimes trying to claim one while contesting everything else will be. This is very board position specific. Once you get a feel for what your army is actually capable of, and likely to accomplish, you can decide based on the board position which option to pursue. This also requires a good understanding of your opponent's army and what it can do/is likely to accomplish.

I agree, but people in here are preaching the almigty gospel that Tacts don't move. At some point in a large portion of your games, you will need to move your units forward. That is when your power fist will be a blessing.

I know it wasn't very accurate, I was just trying to show that a person cannot simply list 6 reasons heavy weapons are bad, and then chose only 1 thing to list for a powerfist, and then claim that because they only listed one thing for the power fist, that heavy weapons are 6Xs as bad. I know it wasn't directly stated but that was the basic reasoning I saw him making.

Not rude at all, thanks for the input.

That "him" was me actually. And I fear you got me wrong there. I didnt claim a powerfist being 6x as good as a missile launcher, which is of course plain rubbish.
I only wanted to stress the amount of damage output a powerfist sergeant is able to deal throughout a game and compare it to a missile launchers output.

And I wanted to clarify that heavy weapons are not necessarily no brainer point+click-instruments. They can be, but they don't have to.
I also wanted to point out, that assaults do happen, and that you should prepare for them in a better fashion than ignoring them trying to avoid them at all cost.

This was my reasoning why I think powerfists are useful. You get along without in some configurations, but it is not close to a waste of points imo.

But there are players that use no powerfists. If the squad doesnt get out of his vehicle all game, a powerfist is of course not necessary.

AresX8 wrote:

Creeperman wrote:As discussed in the other thread on this, you take PFs to pick on low-toughness MCs and ICs, and other MEQ/TEQ squads. A PF is however not a reliable way of killing dreadnoughts, and may even be counterproductive by keeping you locked in assault via shaken or stunned results instead of using combat tactics to escape combat and shoot the dread to death.

I also like how in that thread you ignore my post right below yours.

To the OP: Because in 5th edition, troops are not under the factor of if they get charged, but when. As others have said, it's insurance. TH/SS Termies cannot be everywhere on the board, most of the time they're looking to head towards the opponent's deathstar and kick its ass. Plus, a PF is also a weapon of opportunity. I'd give examples, but I can tell you're the type of person that does silver bullet arguments (like most people on Dakka).

1.) I agree i have charged my dreads into many different squads, even those armed with a power fist do not give you an a great chance of killing the dread quickly. Actually i simulated my 5 man TH/SS with Cyclone Missile Launcher fighting my Venerable Dreadnought (DA version) the TH/SS termies usually win but not before losing a couple guys along the way. in short the most effective way of dealing with any vehicle is to remove it as soon as possible by shooting it.

2. I disagree i have TH/SS termies all over the board.

Its preference and tactics. Debate could go forever.

It could, but it's easy to see the break.

On one side there are those who think they can always handle their opponents on their own terms, and who want upgrades to always kill more than their points cost every single game.

On the other side are those who see 40k as a competitive exercise against an opponent, which means you will have to react to things, and will have to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. They see upgrades in view of what they can kill, but also for their strategic purpose in a quickly shifting game environment.

So long as these two groups exist, there will be a debate, but the existence of debate does not imply the lack of a correct answer, only a lack of consensus thereupon.

Ryan_A wrote:
I know it wasn't very accurate, I was just trying to show that a person cannot simply list 6 reasons heavy weapons are bad, and then chose only 1 thing to list for a powerfist, and then claim that because they only listed one thing for the power fist, that heavy weapons are 6Xs as bad.

He wasn't listing why HW's are BAD, he was listing conditions needed to use the weapon.
I'm amused at nazdreg's post being misinterpreted, since he posts with better english than 95% of the folks flagged from english speaking countries, and he's Ze German

<3 Naz

It allows your tactical squads to do anything!

I pretty much always take fists in my tac squads. Also give the SGTs storm bolters.

Reasons are:

1. They fit in a tactical squad. Tacticals should be flexible. It gives the SGT a way to kill nasty things. Seems like it would make sense to the background of the unit. Yes I care about things like that. Maybe because I'm old and I no longer play any kind of competitive gaming. I do gaming/modeling to relax. I play for the fun of playing out a cool story. Work has enough competition and stress, I don't need to bring it into my hobbies. Same reason I won't ever play more than one game with someone who throws fits about bad die rolls.

2. I have a successor chapter to the Imperial Fists.

3. I've played many a game with either SM or Orks, where I've not kitted out a unit to deal with big nasties and they've be killed or tarpitted. Assaults happen, missile launchers are just a big club in them. PFs have helped out my units many times

4. I have also been an ork player for a long time and as others have said, leaders need fists. Maybe that makes me put them in.

I don't know, I just like them.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

I know it wasn't very accurate, I was just trying to show that a person cannot simply list 6 reasons heavy weapons are bad, and then chose only 1 thing to list for a powerfist, and then claim that because they only listed one thing for the power fist, that heavy weapons are 6Xs as bad. I know it wasn't directly stated but that was the basic reasoning I saw him making.

Not rude at all, thanks for the input.

That "him" was me actually. And I fear you got me wrong there. I didnt claim a powerfist being 6x as good as a missile launcher, which is of course plain rubbish.
I only wanted to stress the amount of damage output a powerfist sergeant is able to deal throughout a game and compare it to a missile launchers output.

And I wanted to clarify that heavy weapons are not necessarily no brainer point+click-instruments. They can be, but they don't have to.
I also wanted to point out, that assaults do happen, and that you should prepare for them in a better fashion than ignoring them trying to avoid them at all cost.

This was my reasoning why I think powerfists are useful. You get along without in some configurations, but it is not close to a waste of points imo.

But there are players that use no powerfists. If the squad doesnt get out of his vehicle all game, a powerfist is of course not necessary.

*my fail* anyway, ya it just seemed to me you were unfairly representing the weapons by giving one of them 6 downfalls and the other only one.

I definatly think you have a point though, as I am sure you are well aware of haha.

*my fail* anyway, ya it just seemed to me you were unfairly representing the weapons by giving one of them 6 downfalls and the other only one.

And I did just that. But that wasnt the purpose of this post. Although 6 downfalls is a bit harsh, because, as you pointed out yourself, several of them are in fact advantageous or at least very likely.

But I oversimplified the close combat part by ignoring the necessary movement to get into close combat (however sometimes it is necessary to move in order to NOT get into combat...)

I definatly think you have a point though, as I am sure you are well aware of haha.

And I will return the favour because of that stated above.

+1 For using it as a defensive/'just in case' type of thing. I had a tac squad go up against an Avatar once... I didn't have a PF then and it probably might have helped.

Now this is coming from a guard player's perspective. But PF's destroy my tanks all the time and make me be more careful where I move them before they are killed.

And while many ML, Lascannons and other powerful weapons are awesome, they can sometimes be wonky and just flop, it is in those situations that it would be nice to have PF to kill vehicles and high T enemies.

So while I think that 25 points is alot, PF's have always hurt me alot

I always run both missle Luanchers and powerfists then combat squad then you can sit and camp and shoot and run the other squad around in a razor back harassing the other player I find having a power fist is benificial even if you dont use it at all. for two reasons
1. it makes walkers and MC's more cautious when about to charge
2. it allows you not to get tarpitted by a dread

Sierra02 wrote:

Reading all your replies it seems that you are being very one-eyed and are not open to what people are saying.

What everyone said is correct, they are used more of a detterent than an actual offensive weapon.

Sure it is INT 1, but with STR 8, it makes people second guess rushing into combat with a walker or Nobs and the like. That second guess will make people worry more about said walker and maybe lose sight of something else. It is all about tactics, not 'Look at my shiny power fist!'.

Just my 2 cents.

Agreed! Also, it seems weird to post a question, and not listen to the reasons people give you. The idea of you asking a question is to get an answer.

I've found that with BT it's more tactically feasible to run a power weapon and meltagun than a powerfist/(insert other special weapon here). Saves on points in the long run and gives me a higher degree of flexibility during the game. While it sucks knowing that I can't just run up and punch things until they die, the cost and the flexibility make it worth it to me. And if all else fails, I put a TH/SS marshall in the squad for the ride.

Depends on taste really, but i allways throw a PF or atleast melta bombs into a tac squad.
Mainly due to the reason you cant kill a walker without them.

So, 25 points is steep?
What about an entire unit rendered useless for the game or dead because they cant kill something that has them locked in combat?

Walkers are amazing unit breakers as alot of people neglect any form of weapon to stop them, or the unit has no option to take such a weapon.

Ork boyz allways take a klaw nob.
Think of 30 boyz locked in combat with even a rifleman dread.
The dread is S6 and cant ignore armour, but the boyz cant kill it either.
You then have a whole unit sat there unable to do anything except slowly die until the game turns out.

jbunny wrote:I got a question for everyone that says Tacs don't move, they camp on the back objective.

Do you just sit on one objective and hope to contest the others? You need to move your tacts forward to claim other objectives. Moving forward means you are closer to assault range.

Your logic would be sound if every TAC squad was forced to stay next to the other TAC squads.

If you have more than one, you use some aggressively and 1-2 defensively. The ones that act defensively are less likely to need the PF