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.

Of course, HWT are one of the most vulnerable units in the game, as well as having a huge price tag.

Foor guard can POUR on the firepower It is truly ridonculous how many special weapons you can pack into a guard army.

Jancoran wrote:Foor guard can POUR on the firepower It is truly ridonculous how many special weapons you can pack into a guard army.

They're also T3 5+. Doesn't matter how good their firepower is, a)everything they shoot will get 4+ cover and b) they will die, quickly.
Also most of those special weapons are in PCS/CCS/special weapon squads with no ablative wounds at all, and terrible leadership.

Who cares what their toughness is OR their saves? They cost 5 points per model!

The only thing that actually curtails IG firepower is literal cost of the models. To put together the terrifying amount of awesomeness they can pump out costs a lot. A LOT. More than I have right now (because I just bought Dark eldar for $1000 which is a chunk).

I sued to tell people an army is $500 to pretty much have everything you need. Now?...

6th edition better be good is all I can say.

Jancoran wrote:Who cares what their toughness is OR their saves? They cost 5 points per model!

The ones with the special weapons don't. PCS is 30 points, that's 6 points a model. Give them 4 meltaguns for 16 points a model, with the officer as a surplus wound, assuming you were okay with them being leadership 7.

Lothar wrote:[Your firepower is much lower than the firepower of mechanized guard or hybrid army and your staying power is greater then theirs.

The second part is right, but the first one certainly isn't. An infantry platoon comes with 4 special weapons squads (counting the extra special weapon you get from the PCS and the two for the minimum required amount of infantry squads), and can then take 5 heavy weapons squads. That's WAY more firepower efficient than a mech list, if you want to go in that direction.

Plus, everything takes orders, because nothing is a vehicle or in a transport.

Plus, everything scores.

Foot guard have the capability to have more durability or more firepower than mech lists, as there's just a lot more you can do with infantry in the codex at the moment. Mech lists have their strong points (mostly from their ability to focus their firepower better than practically any build of any codex), but it's unfair to foot guard to say it has less killing power. Especially when you consider that foot guard can be good in close combat, unlike mech lists.

As for SWSs and HWSs being fragile, yes, yes they are. They're also cheaper (except autocannon HWS vs. hydra) than mech options. Plus, it's easy to get cover saves with HWSs, they make a bigger splash the first turn they shoot (orders). Furthermore, vehicles aren't that much more durable. AV12 is plenty destroyable in a world of missile spam, and you don't even need to wreck the vehicle - a single weapon destroyed result will do just fine on most vehicles.

and...IG foot guard for the win if you have the money.

Ailaros wrote:

Lothar wrote:[Your firepower is much lower than the firepower of mechanized guard or hybrid army and your staying power is greater then theirs.

The second part is right, but the first one certainly isn't. An infantry platoon comes with 4 special weapons squads (counting the extra special weapon you get from the PCS and the two for the minimum required amount of infantry squads), and can then take 5 heavy weapons squads. That's WAY more firepower efficient than a mech list, if you want to go in that direction.

Not really. If your SWS can't get to within 12", when a mech squad can, then they're not much use. Similarly, foot melta that's not in a blob or deep striking stormtroopers will seriously struggle to get into 6" of an enemy tank. They're also BS3.
So your HWT are stuck where they're deployed, meaning they could have serious problems seeing what's important, and can never reposition themselves to get side armour. As well as being super fleshy and will die/flee to even light arms. Ditto SWSs, those guys love to die, and since they need to be close to be valuable <12" for plasma, <6" for melta, they probably won't even get cover.

Ailaros wrote:
As for SWSs and HWSs being fragile, yes, yes they are. They're also cheaper (except autocannon HWS vs. hydra) than mech options. Plus, it's easy to get cover saves with HWSs, they make a bigger splash the first turn they shoot (orders). Furthermore, vehicles aren't that much more durable. AV12 is plenty destroyable in a world of missile spam, and you don't even need to wreck the vehicle - a single weapon destroyed result will do just fine on most vehicles.

Right, they're a bit cheaper, and a LOT more fragile and a LOT less useful. Theoretical firepower isn't important. You have twice as many plasma guns as me, but you can't get them within 12" so really what use are they? What use are melta guns that can't get to within 6"?
One of the biggest advantages to mech is not so much protection from shooting (though obviously that is invaluable), but protection from assault. SWSs have no such protection. It's very easy to tie them down by being multi-charged by a single model, or outright wiped out by pretty much anything.

Ailaros wrote:
An infantry platoon comes with 4 special weapons squads (counting the extra special weapon you get from the PCS and the two for the minimum required amount of infantry squads), and can then take 5 heavy weapons squads. That's WAY more firepower efficient than a mech list, if you want to go in that direction.
Plus, everything takes orders, because nothing is a vehicle or in a transport.
As for SWSs and HWSs being fragile, yes, yes they are. They're also cheaper (except autocannon HWS vs. hydra) than mech options. Plus, it's easy to get cover saves with HWSs, they make a bigger splash the first turn they shoot (orders). Furthermore, vehicles aren't that much more durable. AV12 is plenty destroyable in a world of missile spam, and you don't even need to wreck the vehicle - a single weapon destroyed result will do just fine on most vehicles.

Those special weapons in infantry platoon will not shoot as often as special weapons in chimeras. For example, meltas - your foot squad move 6 and can fire to 12 (or 6 for melta range)...12 melta range. Your chimera squad can move 12, disembark to 3, fire 12 (6 melta)...21 melta range. The difference on the table is HUGE. And since savvy opponent will first shot your guys with more special weapons (CCS, PCS, SWS) if they can danger him (if they are close enough, which is not often), many of them will NEVER fire. It is similar with HWTs, with the difference that HWTs will have chance to fire (since they have very good range), but not many times (since they will not last). So no, foot units are NOT firepower efficient, because they will not use the weapons they can bring as often as mech guard. Only durable units in foot guard are blobs. And their firepower is very small (only one special weapon and/or heavy weapon in squad) for their cost (I count them with commissars, because with no commissars, they are not durable any more).

Everything can take orders? Good luck, you have about 58% to understand an order with SWS or HWTs. And CCS is a primary target most of the time I play. Yes, it is a nice bonus, but thats it. You can not rely on orders (you can not count them as granted)

Are they cheaper? They are. Some of them. LC HWT it is. But it has much less firepower than vendetta. You can compare HWTs or SWSs to chimera vets and say HWT/SWS are cheaper. They are. They also have smaller firepower, almost no mobility, smaller durability. Yes, yes, you can get easy cover save with HWTs...but you can get them as easy with vehicles (exception is vendetta - this machine will probably not have a cover save without flat out). Hydras have no problem to get a cover save and chimeras can smoke before they engage their target. Vehicles are much more durable than small infantry teams. Can you destroy an AV12 vehicle with STR 3,4,5 shot? No. Can you destroy it with STR 6,7 shot? Yes, but hardly. Can you do that with STR 8,9 shot? Yes, but your chance is not really that big (hit/penetrate/cover/good result on chart). Example: You have only about 20% chance to immobilize(OR weapon destroy, pick one of them)/wreck/explode a smoked chimera with 3 LC shots (and if you immobilize it, it can still fire, if you destroy its multilaser, it still has another gun AND is still a thread because of embarked special weapons)...with missile shots, the chance is even smaller. But you have about 36% chance to destroy/make flee the whole HWTs with the same shots. So, you can get rid of HWTs easier then of a chimera with the strongest AT weapons. AND you can obliterate HWTs with anti-infantry weapons, which will do little to nothing to vehicles...So yes, AV 12 vehicles are quite durable compared to HWTs or SWS or CCS and PCS.

Blobs are what foot guard is relying on. Not HWTs. The advantage of foot guard is that your enemy can not use his AT weapons with good effect. If you take HWTs, you are not using this advantage and all the ATs will destroy HWTs very soon. Foot guards power is also in large wounds around your special/heavy weapons or around your power swords. If you use PCS/CCS with 4 special weapons or SWS, you are not using this advantage. If your enemy will see HWTs or small special weapons squads, he will kill them with ease (you can outflank SWSs with Al Rahem, that is the only way how to let them fire before they get shot or assaulted, but you opponent knows this too and can often -not all the time!- deploy to prevent this. You can also use Stormtroopers to deliver your special weapons in range, but they are very costly with only small firepower).

So, playing a proper foot guard, you have not good firepower, you have extra wounds, you have durability, you can survive a lot of enemy fire or assaults. Playing a proper mech guard, you have excelent firepower, you have many AV 12 vehicles (chimeras!, hydras, vendettas, manticore, hellhounds,...), your advantage is in many targets with the same AV12 durability (which is nothing special, but ok given the number of vehicles), and all of them very dangerous for your opponent.

I don't get av 12 saturation. Does it mean you spam a bunch of av 12 and it some how turns your enemy into a moron who can't prioritize targets?

Testify wrote: If your SWS can't get to within 12", when a mech squad can, then they're not much use.

A mech squad doesn't guarantee that you get special weapons into range. They certainly help, but I'd note here that you can get two SWSs for the price of a SWS and a chimera (which you have to do shenannigans for, as you can't even give a SWS a chimera by default.

Transports help you focus what firepower you have, but foot lists allow you to have much more firepower here, making the concentration thereof less important.

Testify wrote:So your HWT are stuck where they're deployed

Not any moreso than heavy weapons elsewhere. A russ can move 6" and fire it's equivalent 3 autocannons, or a hydra can move 6" and fire their equivalent 1.5, but this is only a small amount of movement here.

Lothar wrote:The advantage of foot guard is that your enemy can not use his AT weapons with good effect. If you take HWTs, you are not using this advantage and all the ATs will destroy HWTs very soon.

With everything you said, you overestimated the slowness of foot guard while also overestimating their fragility, while arbitrarily throwing out or diminishing some important things that make foot guard better (orders, better/easier cover, improved field position, etc.). Of course you're not going to like foot guard if you can't make a fair appraisal of them.

As for the above specific quote, this is in theory a problem, but not all that much in practice. Firstly, long-range weapons really only shine in the first couple of turns of the game before things get stuck in, choice targets are already removed, the carriers become threatened, etc. That HWSs don't survive late into the game isn't that big of a problem, which is good, because if having your long-range firepower shut down turn 1 was a problem, mech lists would be screwed. ML longfangs don't take any more time to dismantle hydras and artillery pieces than it takes them to shut down HWSs.

Secondly, HWSs are not in a class of their own. There are lots of things that they saturate against. If you've got a list with CCSs, PCSs, HWSs, and rough riders, or scout sentinels or ogryn or PBSs you can give your opponent a lot of legitimately threatening things to shoot his limited supply of railguns or missile launchers at. And that's not to say things about being smarter in deployment or use of cover. Yes, in an utter vaccum without looking at player skill on the field or in list building, in a 1 on 1, a HWS will have problems with a lot of stuff (though, I'd note, that mech units don't do much better, if at all). Allowing for a more comprehensive approach, HWSs aren't THAT bad, and, as importantly, their mech equivalents aren't really better.

Which just leaves questionable utility like being able to survive small arms better, but really, how often have you actually had your HWSs in small arms range when it mattered? Or likewise, HWSs are more vulnerable to certain guns (like multilasers), while being a lot less vulnerable to others (like meltaguns). It's tough to pick out details that give mech units a real and distinctive advantage without also finding equal and opposite drawbacks.

Ailaros wrote:

Testify wrote: If your SWS can't get to within 12", when a mech squad can, then they're not much use.

A mech squad doesn't guarantee that you get special weapons into range. They certainly help, but I'd note here that you can get two SWSs for the price of a SWS and a chimera (which you have to do shenannigans for, as you can't even give a SWS a chimera by default.

Transports help you focus what firepower you have, but foot lists allow you to have much more firepower here, making the concentration thereof less important.

Testify wrote:So your HWT are stuck where they're deployed

Not any moreso than heavy weapons elsewhere. A russ can move 6" and fire it's equivalent 3 autocannons, or a hydra can move 6" and fire their equivalent 1.5, but this is only a small amount of movement here.

Lothar wrote:The advantage of foot guard is that your enemy can not use his AT weapons with good effect. If you take HWTs, you are not using this advantage and all the ATs will destroy HWTs very soon.

With everything you said, you overestimated the slowness of foot guard while also overestimating their fragility, while arbitrarily throwing out or diminishing some important things that make foot guard better (orders, better/easier cover, improved field position, etc.). Of course you're not going to like foot guard if you can't make a fair appraisal of them.

As for the above specific quote, this is in theory a problem, but not all that much in practice. Firstly, long-range weapons really only shine in the first couple of turns of the game before things get stuck in, choice targets are already removed, the carriers become threatened, etc. That HWSs don't survive late into the game isn't that big of a problem, which is good, because if having your long-range firepower shut down turn 1 was a problem, mech lists would be screwed. ML longfangs don't take any more time to dismantle hydras and artillery pieces than it takes them to shut down HWSs.

Secondly, HWSs are not in a class of their own. There are lots of things that they saturate against. If you've got a list with CCSs, PCSs, HWSs, and rough riders, or scout sentinels or ogryn or PBSs you can give your opponent a lot of legitimately threatening things to shoot his limited supply of railguns or missile launchers at. And that's not to say things about being smarter in deployment or use of cover. Yes, in an utter vaccum without looking at player skill on the field or in list building, in a 1 on 1, a HWS will have problems with a lot of stuff (though, I'd note, that mech units don't do much better, if at all). Allowing for a more comprehensive approach, HWSs aren't THAT bad, and, as importantly, their mech equivalents aren't really better.

Which just leaves questionable utility like being able to survive small arms better, but really, how often have you actually had your HWSs in small arms range when it mattered? Or likewise, HWSs are more vulnerable to certain guns (like multilasers), while being a lot less vulnerable to others (like meltaguns). It's tough to pick out details that give mech units a real and distinctive advantage without also finding equal and opposite drawbacks.

This^

This is why, although i don't agree with him sometimes, I respect Ailaros' posts. He not only presents his arguements welll, but he also provides valuable insight and proof as to why he believes in his PoV. which a lot of people around dakka seem to be lacking now a days.

Ailaros wrote:
A mech squad doesn't guarantee that you get special weapons into range. They certainly help, but I'd note here that you can get two SWSs for the price of a SWS and a chimera (which you have to do shenannigans for, as you can't even give a SWS a chimera by default.

Transports help you focus what firepower you have, but foot lists allow you to have much more firepower here, making the concentration thereof less important.

I don't want SWS in a chimera, I want a vet squad in a chimera. Point stands though. Concentration of firepower is everything. What use are guns if the enemy is out of range and you can't get to him in your movement phase? This is even more apparent vs enemies with a few, large-point units.

Ailaros wrote:
Not any moreso than heavy weapons elsewhere. A russ can move 6" and fire it's equivalent 3 autocannons, or a hydra can move 6" and fire their equivalent 1.5, but this is only a small amount of movement here.

Or a chimera can move 12" and disembark 2". If I really need to pop a Land Raider, I can do this, then shell the Termies inside with my Demolishers. HWT/SWSs don't have this flexibility.
You've also ignored the durability issue. Troops inside chimeras are immune to S5 and below shooting, as well as *all* close combat. That's a huge chunk of most armies' killing power right there. It also means your heavy hitters are going to be safe since anti-tank firepower is being directed towards your chimeras.

Testify wrote:You've also ignored the durability issue. Troops inside chimeras are immune to S5 and below shooting, as well as *all* close combat.

Certainly, and when the transport is wrecked, there's a chance that you take explosion casualties, and you're now wadded up in a nice little ball on the transport footprint that makes rich, rich targets for blast and template weapons.

Plus, transports aren't free. You can't just compare the durability of two mechvet squads against two vet squads without rides, you have to compare it to THREE vet squads without rides. In the case of SWSs, you don't get the durability of the transport, but you do get twice as many models, which adds a deal of durability in itself. If you're talking about the durability of transports, you have to take into account that the foot commander would be using those few hundred points (armywide) on chimeras on something else.

Plus, it's much easier for infantry to get cover saves, what with just needing to have their big toe in area terrain to count as cover. Getting a vehicle 50% obscured against all targets is much more difficult and situational. Plus, if you really, really need something to survive, infantry can always go to ground, or super-go to ground with incoming! and in the case of vets opt for camo cloaks.

Testify wrote:Concentration of firepower is everything. What use are guns if the enemy is out of range and you can't get to him in your movement phase?

Firstly, I'd note that in mech lists, the advantage in concentration is only kept while the transports aren't stunned, immobilized, or destroyed. Plus, if the guys inside survived their pin check, their next movement phase is now through difficult terrain.

Secondly, and much more importantly, I agree with the above statement, but in a slightly different form. What's important here is the number of weapons you can get on your targets. There are a few different ways to do this. One of them, for example, is to have few guns, but to make it so that they are highly mobile, and so can always focus them to achieve local superiority wherever they chose to attack. Mech lists (especially skimmer mech lists, which blow treaded ones away in this regard) use this doctrine.

Foot list have a way of doing this as well, but it's different than concentration. Instead of having a few weapons in one place, they have a lot of guns everywhere. Instead of having 3 meltaguns that they can move to the left or to the right, they have three meltaguns over on the left, and three meltaguns over on the right. That the two sides can't concentrate doesn't actually matter if the end result is that you have three meltaguns present wherever your opponent chooses to go. The two styles have equal killing power in this scenario. Instead of being "there's no place you can run where I can't catch you", it's rather "there's no place you can run where I don't already have killing power in place".

In order to do the latter of these styles, you need to have an army that can pack a lot of killing power onto a LOT of units for cheap. Conveniently, foot guard does this. As such, it can run a "field position" game, rather than the "force concentration" game of mech lists.

Plus, I'd note that the difference between foot and mech guard lists here is actually pretty small. Foot units can move 6" and fire 12", while mech can move 12" and fire 12". That's only a 6" difference. Transports may help you concentrate your killing power better, but foot lists don't really lose out THAT much. When you have good field position, that difference is easy to cover for.

Because, in the end, it isn't a game of only who can concentrate their killing power, but rather who can apply the most killing power. If the former were true, then I'd agree that foot lists would be pretty shabby, but as the former is actually a subset of the latter, foot lists can do fine, being able to apply the more general principle.

bogalubov wrote:

Velocifaptor wrote:
1) Should I bother buying special weapons for my PCS i tend to, flamers can be great versus hordes, and despite the reduced BS, some plasma guns with a medic can last a while for a static unit versus marines, its a YMMV situation though. I have had a lot of luck versus a wide variety of opponents using 3x grenade launchers as well
2) Should I bother buying special weapons for my Infantry Squads I always do, because I want IS to be mobile and able to still fire to some degree, if you are going to just stand fast though, it may be more worthwhile to go with a heavy weapon, however, I can't discount the power of the odd strength 68 shot...
3) Are conscripts with your friendly neighborhood BLAM! happy commissar worth it as compared to just getting more guardsmen (seem like the points cost of gretching vs orks to me) especially as a throw away counter charge unit. I like commissar with regular guardsmen, blobbed. I've not had much love for conscripts since the 4th ed codex went the way of the birds... perhaps if you also took the russian dude
4) Am I to assume I get Lascannons as my heavy weapons always and forever? what about Autocannons? auto's are what i swear by, followed by lascannons, in equal numbers.... strength 7 can glance/shake most everything but land raiders and monoliths, and you have two shots, they double well for putting wounds on marines and cracking fast vehicles.
5) Are vox channels going to be worth it for this type of army? As a rule, I always take voxes, mostly due to my desire to pass my orders as often as possible.
6) What Heavy Heavy Supports should I use, I was thinking like 4 or so Medusa's and or like 3 Manticores or maybe even some Hydras for that anti light vehicle flak fire. [b]what do you want to use? TBH, medusas and manticores are great for pie plating, but there is a LOT to be said about multiple russes,)
7) Are heavy weapons teams additions worth it or should I just spring for more guardsmen to give them 8 wound buffers?
8) I was thinking 3 squads of 1 vendetta each for some cheap (rape) lascannons

1. I think special weapons in a PCS could be a good way to deal with deep strikers and outflankers. It's also a great place to jam in more heavy weapons.
2. Melta guns in the infantry squads serve as a good deterrent from tanks getting too close to them.
3. Conscripts are not worth it. They get no special weapons. No heavy weapons. No power weapons. Most importantly, no commissar. You need to bring additional units to make them stubborn or fearless.
4. Lascannons are generally better than autocannons.
5. Voxxes take points away from more weapons that you can bring.
6. The humble vanilla Leman Russ might be the best choice for heavy support. Another place to bring more lascannons as well. Of the two you ask about, the Manticore and the Hydra are the best.
7. Heavy weapons squads are very fragile, but are a good way to bring more weapons. You'll have to see what works for you.
8. Vendettas seem good, but I've never had problems knocking them out of the sky. I feel it's too much real world money for such a fragile units.

Ailaros wrote:
With everything you said, you overestimated the slowness of foot guard while also overestimating their fragility, while arbitrarily throwing out or diminishing some important things that make foot guard better (orders, better/easier cover, improved field position, etc.). Of course you're not going to like foot guard if you can't make a fair appraisal of them.

As for the above specific quote, this is in theory a problem, but not all that much in practice. Firstly, long-range weapons really only shine in the first couple of turns of the game before things get stuck in, choice targets are already removed, the carriers become threatened, etc. That HWSs don't survive late into the game isn't that big of a problem, which is good, because if having your long-range firepower shut down turn 1 was a problem, mech lists would be screwed. ML longfangs don't take any more time to dismantle hydras and artillery pieces than it takes them to shut down HWSs.

Secondly, HWSs are not in a class of their own. There are lots of things that they saturate against. If you've got a list with CCSs, PCSs, HWSs, and rough riders, or scout sentinels or ogryn or PBSs you can give your opponent a lot of legitimately threatening things to shoot his limited supply of railguns or missile launchers at. And that's not to say things about being smarter in deployment or use of cover. Yes, in an utter vaccum without looking at player skill on the field or in list building, in a 1 on 1, a HWS will have problems with a lot of stuff (though, I'd note, that mech units don't do much better, if at all). Allowing for a more comprehensive approach, HWSs aren't THAT bad, and, as importantly, their mech equivalents aren't really better.

Which just leaves questionable utility like being able to survive small arms better, but really, how often have you actually had your HWSs in small arms range when it mattered? Or likewise, HWSs are more vulnerable to certain guns (like multilasers), while being a lot less vulnerable to others (like meltaguns). It's tough to pick out details that give mech units a real and distinctive advantage without also finding equal and opposite drawbacks.

You say I am overestimating the slowness of foot guard. I say you are underestimating it. You say I am overestimating the fragility of foot guard. I say this is not true. And I am not diminishing orders impact on the game, I used right percentige chance, this is not true what you are saying.
As for the above specific quote, it is a problem in practice, not only in theory. I experienced it myself or saw/read it in replays/reports many times. "ML longfangs don't take any more time to dismantle hydras and artillery pieces than it takes them to shut down HWSs"...this is soooo not true. Not in theory, not in practice. Just run the numbers or take several HWSs against long fang spam and you will see it yourself.

"Secondly, HWSs are not in a class of their own. There are lots of things that they saturate against. If you've got a list with CCSs, PCSs, HWSs, and rough riders, or scout sentinels or ogryn or PBSs you can give your opponent a lot of legitimately threatening things to shoot his limited supply of railguns or missile launchers at"...Again, not true. That limited supply of railguns/ML will fire against HWSs, because CCS, PCS or RR are easily killed will smaller S weapons. HWS are the target for AT fire, CCS is the secondary target for AT fire (once HWTs are gone) and the primary target for small arms fire (all weapons with S 5 or lower, and there is a lot of them out there).
"HWSs aren't THAT bad, and, as importantly, their mech equivalents aren't really better."...I think they are, I have already said why...
"HWSs are more vulnerable to certain guns (like multilasers), while being a lot less vulnerable to others (like meltaguns)". HWSs are more vulnerable to EVERY - not certain - S6+ guns, with the exception of AP 1 weapons. There are, however, certain weapons against which are almost ONLY vulnerable HWSs in comparison to AV12 vehicles (All the S6, all the S7 - because they have only minimum chance to do something to AV12). And HWSs are only slightly less vulnerable to meltas. A squad with meltas (example - vets in chimera) will vaporize/route your HWS as well as destroy a vehicle...

As I see it, we only agree to disagree with each other.

They can abuse cover and get a 3+ save very easily.

When 6th comes out and cover is a 5+ blob guard wont be viable.

Now you are entering the speculation of rumors, confirmed or not.

With that we can also look at the bump to rapid fire guns. As well as the structure system being applied to vehicles. My point is we will not know until 6th comes out, and somehow I doubt infantry will take a blow.

You are also only recognizing HWS as a way to get big guns into a foot list. IS squads can take them as well and will make it much harder for opponents to remove them. Now they have to get through a lot more wounds before even touching the HW team.

Footguard simply needs to plan ahead. Realize that they need to think about objective in deployment and not turn 4 or 5. They are mobile, a PCS on foot with a handful of flamers is no real threat. They can move, issue move move move on themselves, as well as plan for cover and not be a large enough threat to be focused on by your opponent.

Lothar wrote:You say I am overestimating the slowness of foot guard. I say you are underestimating it. You say I am overestimating the fragility of foot guard. I say this is not true.

If you want to say that something that an army that moves nearly 12" per turn versus one that almost always moves 12" per turn is much worse, feel free to believe that. In this case, it is a real disagreement, but don't expect to get a lot or support. If you want to claim that an exterminator is better than two autocannon teams by virtue of the fact that exterminators can move and shoot, while ignoring everything I've been saying about field position, that's fine, but once again, you're choosing to be in disagreement by choosing to adhere to a less nuianced viewpoint without giving any reasons for why looking at things less comprehensively is the superior way to look at things.

Lothar wrote: "ML longfangs don't take any more time to dismantle hydras and artillery pieces than it takes them to shut down HWSs"...this is soooo not true. Not in theory, not in practice.

It takes 10 ML hits to wipe a HWS off the table in cover. It takes 10 ML hits to cause a weapon destroyed, wrecked, or exploded result against a vehicle in cover. Of course, getting cover is much more difficult.

Yes, the HWS has to deal with morale, but the vehicle has to deal with potential immobilized results (which means your vehicle is now less mobile even than "immobile" HWSs), and getting stun locked.

Plus, if you really need to, the HWS can go to ground, and, with orders, can sometimes do it with a 2+ cover save. And they score. And sometimes they've got +50% more firepower because they're twin-linked.

Possibly more firepower. Equal or better survivability. Score, and don't take up HS slots.

If you're going to continue to insist that vehicular heavy support is just better, then you've got to make a better argument than the opposite being "sooo not true".

Lothar wrote:"Secondly, HWSs are not in a class of their own. There are lots of things that they saturate against. If you've got a list with CCSs, PCSs, HWSs, and rough riders, or scout sentinels or ogryn or PBSs you can give your opponent a lot of legitimately threatening things to shoot his limited supply of railguns or missile launchers at"...Again, not true. That limited supply of railguns/ML will fire against HWSs, because CCS, PCS or RR are easily killed will smaller S weapons. HWS are the target for AT fire, CCS is the secondary target for AT fire (once HWTs are gone) and the primary target for small arms fire (all weapons with S 5 or lower, and there is a lot of them out there).

What? Lower strength weapons hurt both HWSs and CCSs. Likewise, so do anti-tank weapons.

Furthermore, you're once again looking at things way too simply. Yes, HWSs are targets for anti-tank, but if your opponent is also bringing 3, 10x sized PBSs that are literally blowing your stuff off the table, the HWS might not be the biggest threat. It may very well be worthwhile to shoot lascannons at those rough riders before they absolutely obliterate your army next turn, rather than against the HWSs which are going to do much less damage next turn, and can thus be handled the turn after.

Taking the position that forcing target priority problems isn't a real advantage from a position of refusing to believe that it's possible to force target priority problems isn't a very strong stance.

Lothar wrote:"HWSs are more vulnerable to certain guns (like multilasers), while being a lot less vulnerable to others (like meltaguns)". HWSs are more vulnerable to EVERY - not certain - S6+ guns, with the exception of AP 1 weapons. There are, however, certain weapons against which are almost ONLY vulnerable HWSs in comparison to AV12 vehicles

It is true that a hydra will never care about lasguns shooting at them, while HWSs will. Once again, you're explaining things in an oversimplified vacuum world on paper. You can't just tally up a list of which unit type has more guns that can possibly ever hurt it and then declare whichever unit's list is smaller to be the most durable. This would believe you to think things like a deepstriking 2x meltagun stormie squad is better against HWSs than against hydras because the hellguns can't hurt the hydra. The extra damage that the hellguns do to the HWS, however, is actually negligible to what the +D6 and Ap1 of the meltas do to the hydra.

As for the specifics, we've been over this already. There are certain weapons, like rail guns and lasguns and meltaguns and krak grenades that will take apart a hydra faster than they will take apart an HWS. There are certain weapons, like bolters and heavy bolters and plasma guns that will take apart an HWS faster than a hydra. There are some things, like thunder hammers and missile launchers, that will take out both targets roughly equally well. Even then, this doesn't really matter that much, because of the above mentioned. It doesn't matter which unit has a longer list against which they are literally invincible.

This is not only true in theory, and not only in the list building phase (where a person is more likely to have more meltaguns than heavy bolters), but it's also a matter of things on the field. Once again, you've got to expand your scope of looking at things here. What does it matter, for example, if HWSs can be hurt by bolters and hydras can't if you're never actually going to get either of them shot at by bolters? If bolters never get into range, or if the HWS is killed by bigger guns first, or the game devolves to the point on the field where heavy weapons themselves are of greatly diminished use, then conditions on the field, in the real world, have actually negated this disadvantage. Once again, it's not a matter of who has more disadvantages on paper, it's a matter of who has more disadvantages that actually get preyed upon over the course of real games.

Lothar wrote:As I see it, we only agree to disagree with each other.

It's a little more complex than this, actually. I'm disagreeing with you because you're making your points and then backing them up by sheer force of assertion and repetition. You're not actually engaging with what I'm saying, or presenting your arguments with any real degree of complexity. I don't disagree with you, per se, so much as I disagree with people who present arguments without reasoning them through first.

Why you disagree with me is beyond my ability to ascertain. Especially if it's unclear why you're choosing to believe what you believe in this issue.

This game, presently, relies on just two things to make Foot Guard good: tons of firepower and tools to break charges that threaten the firepower.

I don't think I've seen a battle where these two fundamentals weren't true.

So as much hoopla as is being made here and as many golden generalities like "very easily", and "viable" and all those other nice words people like to put importance on (which mean essentially nothing) here's the bottom line:

The army can be built do those things. If it could not be, sure, you could say it doesn't work. But it can. So it can.

What is the value in debating whether it can happen when instead we could be discussing HOW TO MAKE it be successful? Is this a tactics thread or a list building thread people? Does anyone even KNOW the difference?

Jancoran wrote:This game, presently, relies on just two things to make Foot Guard good: tons of firepower and tools to break charges that threaten the firepower.

I don't think I've seen a battle where these two fundamentals weren't true.

So as much hoopla as is being made here and as many golden generalities like "very easily", and "viable" and all those other nice words people like to put importance on (which mean essentially nothing) here's the bottom line:

The army can be built do those things. If it could not be, sure, you could say it doesn't work. But it can. So it can.

What is the value in debating whether it can happen when instead we could be discussing HOW TO MAKE it be successful? Is this a tactics thread or a list building thread people? Does anyone even KNOW the
I would suggest commissars to get stubborn, if possible a lord commie w a creed ccs can be really mean to Mecha lists. Ogryns are great for.charge control and tarpit, but they.need babysitting. I think hat any list not built w the limitations of the standard guardsman in mind will struggle though