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.

TLDR Screening against flyers

Hi guys!

Playing AM since a few months, had a game against my friends, 1000 pts 1v1v1v1, but quickly became a 1v1 and another 1v1 (other than me one shotting a dreadnought across the board). My opponent was a BA with HQ + Elites. Deployment zone was very tight, on a smaller than usual board, I came last, so even from the start I had problems. Every single unit of his had jump packs, so regardless all of the above, screening became impossible. I've been looking through forums on this, but found nothing on how to deal with fly units essentially being unscreenable. Even if I use a gakload of infantry, he comes closest he can get, makes some room for a charge, and boom, he's in. I would literally have to deploy my infantry base-to-base, and even that wouldn't help after a failed morale check.

I know this was a special situation, but got me thinking, that generally my gunline (regular Russ+Basilisk line + loads of infantry) is very much hard countered by jump pack infantry with regular sized bases. Numbers don't help, dedicated melee units don't help, I just have no clue what to do if I'm not playing in a large deployment zone.

Cheers.

Screen more and differently. Jump units can still only mostly charge 2D6". Lead your screen units that range from your hard shooters and they cant get in. Alternatively, screen tightly ariund your tank but leave approx a .5" gap radius around. Enemy units cant fit in to tap your russ and will only punch guardsmen. Fall back next turn and shoot fhem to kingdom come.

Check out D6 evolution on YouTube, they have an excellent screening video that demonstrates screening against a variety of units

I am looking to expand my collection of flyers a little with either a Thunderbolt, (2nd) Lightning or a Marauder destroyer. Is either of them worth it in competetive play at the moment? I saw some pictures of a guy at the US GT running two Thunderbolts but am not sure if they are worth it.

 UMGuy wrote:
Screen more and differently. Jump units can still only mostly charge 2D6". Lead your screen units that range from your hard shooters and they cant get in. Alternatively, screen tightly ariund your tank but leave approx a .5" gap radius around. Enemy units cant fit in to tap your russ and will only punch guardsmen. Fall back next turn and shoot fhem to kingdom come.

Check out D6 evolution on YouTube, they have an excellent screening video that demonstrates screening against a variety of units

Watch out for Chaplains. They have a new aura ability that allows for a 6" pile in.

Ba dont get them

Push your first screen out as far as you can to not allow the fly units in between them and your vehicles (1" from vehicles, an area slightly smaller than the fly unit's base, +1" to your screen). Then screen your screen far enough that the Fly unit can't engage them both and can't fit between them either. Use multiple squads per screen if you have to so a line isn't removed entirely by shooting. This gives you room to fall back and fire after it charges, and if it still alive, absorb another charge hopefully.

The new chaplains can give a unit a 6" Pile in and a 6" consolidate. This is a huge potential issue with jump packs that will require defense in depth

Hey Gents,
Regarding the melta versus plasma debate:
My opponent plays Dark Angels and hides his -1 to hit granting vehicle behind some cover. I feel like the only way that I can get a good shot at it is to deep strike some scions. In this case, is overcharging plasma still the best way to attack? I was thinking of using melta with the elimination protocol order.
thanks

Overcharging Plasma with -1 to hit is almost always going to give you a bad time since you'll overheat 1/3 of the time.

Colonel Flashman wrote:
Hey Gents,
Regarding the melta versus plasma debate:
My opponent plays Dark Angels and hides his -1 to hit granting vehicle behind some cover. I feel like the only way that I can get a good shot at it is to deep strike some scions. In this case, is overcharging plasma still the best way to attack? I was thinking of using melta with the elimination protocol order.
thanks

Remind me, is it a flat -1, or is it a -1 until you close within 12"? I'm assuming the former since you're reluctant to use plasma on it.

So we're talking hitting on 4's, wounding on 3's, rerolling. If it gets through, flat d6, no melta bonus. So a command squad full of melta has odds of doing roughly 6-7 damage average unless it's got an invuln, before cp reroll for damage.

Meanwhile plasma is doing 8 shots, odds are 1-2 guys are dying even with rerolls, and odds are you're doing probably 4 damage if I'm thinking right, since you'd reroll to hit in that instance.

Yeah, I'd say melta is probably the better choice there. The problem id argue there is your opponent will probably only fall for that once, if that. Once he realizes you plan on nuking the feth out of his critical -1 buff, he *should* screen the heck out of it to deny you doing that. Maybe that works to your advantage, but it does bring up the other issue melta has now, aka 9" deepstriking when it wants to be within 6", and can't shoot past 12".

So that would be a judgement call in my opinion, since any other target plasma is still probably superior against dark angels. For what it's worth, I still run melta on my stormtroopers too, not as much as plasma but I do run it. It's just way less flexible for the price. If GW would just swap the prices I think youd see a pretty healthy 50/50 split and there would be strong arguments for both. As it sits, melta is only superior in very select fringe cases, like your example. And even then, you're paying more per gun for a meager possible 2 or more damage. You could always roll ones for damage, as opposed to plasma which is flat damage.

Thanks for the responses. The darkshroud (I remembered the name pretty much as soon as I was done writing) gives a -1 to hit at all ranges. At least that is the way we have played it. The point of my post is that I am building some more scions, and face the question of whether to build 4 melta dudes. So the future beyond our next game is very relevant. Be that as it may, I was thinking to build the melta dudes, but then I read an earlier post by you, MrMoustaffa, regarding overcharging plasma even without the reroles on one, and I thought what difference does it really make? I mean, my friend is going to blow my deep striking scions away in the following turn anyway.
thanks

Now that we're starting to see at least one army that can DS turn 1 is anyone else taking a second look at the scout sentinel ?

 necron99 wrote:
Now that we're starting to see at least one army that can DS turn 1 is anyone else taking a second look at the scout sentinel ?

Don't the new marine dreadsuit models still set up first, before scout sentinels? If so, sentinels are still pointless because those dreads are good anyways and it's a no brainer to use them to shut down pre game scout moves. Basically they can just stick a dread where they want the pod to go, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, they're golden.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 necron99 wrote:
Now that we're starting to see at least one army that can DS turn 1 is anyone else taking a second look at the scout sentinel ?

Don't the new marine dreadsuit models still set up first, before scout sentinels? If so, sentinels are still pointless because those dreads are good anyways and it's a no brainer to use them to shut down pre game scout moves. Basically they can just stick a dread where they want the pod to go, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, they're golden.

huh...hadn't heard about them being able to do that but you are right - I just looked it up...was thinking more about drop pods making a come back. I had like 9 back in 7th. I would think you'll be more likely to see a bunch of pods getting dusted off now. But yeah I could see people buying 2 or 3 deads to prep the landing zone as it were

Has anyone had much experience running Superheavy companies?

I've been toying with the idea for some time, both for competitive and derpy casual play. Competitively, I've been thinking something like a superheavy detachment with 3 baneblades or 2 and a Shadowsword, coupled with two basic IG batallions for competitive play a 2k, and just going whole hog in with 3 Baneblades and a Shadowsword (and only 6 CP with no screens) for more casual play.

Broadly, it seems like just running more basic units like Hellhounds and Russ Tanks in place of the superheavies will get you about 30-50% more wounds and firepower output than the Superheavies do, and they don't have invuls or any cool tricks or stratagems like Knights, so I don't feel too bad about them not being able to be locked down by close combat, but I'm curious as to what success people have had with such lists, what variants worked best and what kind of setups did you use? Any particularly bad matchups?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Has anyone had much experience running Superheavy companies?

I've been toying with the idea for some time, both for competitive and derpy casual play. Competitively, I've been thinking something like a superheavy detachment with 3 baneblades or 2 and a Shadowsword, coupled with two basic IG batallions for competitive play a 2k, and just going whole hog in with 3 Baneblades and a Shadowsword (and only 6 CP with no screens) for more casual play.

Broadly, it seems like just running more basic units like Hellhounds and Russ Tanks in place of the superheavies will get you about 30-50% more wounds and firepower output than the Superheavies do, and they don't have invuls or any cool tricks or stratagems like Knights, so I don't feel too bad about them not being able to be locked down by close combat, but I'm curious as to what success people have had with such lists, what variants worked best and what kind of setups did you use? Any particularly bad matchups?

As for bad matchups, I'd guess that a competitive GSC army would be a very tough nut to crack for a list based on superheavies. Mind Control, Mass Hypnosis and a bunch of rocksaw acolytes or buffed aberrants will ruin the day. In addition to it being mostly cheap infantry with no worhty targets for the big guns.

That said, a superheavy company will look awesome on the table.

Rocksaw Acolytes can charge from deepstrike on 7'' and Abberants on 6'' so then I think Morridan with defensive gunners maybe would be way to go considering additional sponsons?

So I know that the Take Cover strat was faq'd awhile back but I don't think I understand the implications of the nerf...can someone use smaller words for me

 necron99 wrote:
So I know that the Take Cover strat was faq'd awhile back but I don't think I understand the implications of the nerf...can someone use smaller words for me

It's been nerfed twice.

When it first dropped, all units in the codex could use it for all saves. So baneblades could take cover for a 2+ armor save. So GW realized that was dumb and made it infantry only.

But ogryn are infantry and get 4+ invuln Shields, and crusaders get stormshields, which meant using take cover got them up to a 3+ iand 2+ nvuln respectively, and pyschic barrier was a pretty easy 2+ invuln for ogryn, so GW nerfed it again.

Now, it only affects armor saves. So now the most cheesy thing you can do with it is have guardsmen with power armor tier saves taking cover in actual cover, or stormtroopers saving on 2+'s if they take cover in cover.

It should've been that way from the get go, but it lines up with the apparent GW mantra that no invulns are better than a 3+ aside from the odd relic or ability.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Has anyone had much experience running Superheavy companies?

I've been toying with the idea for some time, both for competitive and derpy casual play. Competitively, I've been thinking something like a superheavy detachment with 3 baneblades or 2 and a Shadowsword, coupled with two basic IG batallions for competitive play a 2k, and just going whole hog in with 3 Baneblades and a Shadowsword (and only 6 CP with no screens) for more casual play.

Broadly, it seems like just running more basic units like Hellhounds and Russ Tanks in place of the superheavies will get you about 30-50% more wounds and firepower output than the Superheavies do, and they don't have invuls or any cool tricks or stratagems like Knights, so I don't feel too bad about them not being able to be locked down by close combat, but I'm curious as to what success people have had with such lists, what variants worked best and what kind of setups did you use? Any particularly bad matchups?

Eldar casting Doom on a superheavy gives them a whole lot more utility from that one cast. And they can rinse Doomed units badly.

I only have 30 Guardsmen and once that screen went my tanks just got swamped by massed shuriken/Doom, Wraithcannons and cheap shots with Smite as the Eldar player closed the range.

With the changes to demolisher cannons I'm wondering how viable they are. The firepower is staggering now that they do a full D6 shots vs single targets. The weakness is still the short range which limits it to catachans IMO, but it is a lot of anti tank dakka. They average the same number of shots as a regular battle cannon now and hit like lascannons. I'm tempted to try them but don't see it working with Canadians

 schadenfreude wrote:
With the changes to demolisher cannons I'm wondering how viable they are. The firepower is staggering now that they do a full D6 shots vs single targets. The weakness is still the short range which limits it to catachans IMO, but it is a lot of anti tank dakka. They average the same number of shots as a regular battle cannon now and hit like lascannons. I'm tempted to try them but don't see it working with Canadians

Demolisher change didn't affect IG, that's space marines only. Don't take battlescribe at face value, we weren't mentioned in the marine FAQ so for the time being ours remain d3 shots base. That said we're still better than the marine ones because 2d3 is way more consistent than d6.

If we get that change though, it's definitely a good weapon. 2d6 Ap3 S10 shots with D6 damage can scare just about anything in the game, and with the Advent of T9 chaos knights the S10 is even more powerful than it used to be.

I'd argue that it'd become a no brainer tank commander for most regiments, although Catachans is an obvious one. With the vigilus formation you can move one 10" and grinding advance which gives you 34" threat radius (40 if Vostroyans) Thats very respectful for something that will punch far above it's weight class. If that happens, triple tank commanders running Hammer, Punisher, and Demolisher would be a given for most guard lists. That just covers so many bases for such a small pts investment you cant really go wrong no matter which regiment you run.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 necron99 wrote:
So I know that the Take Cover strat was faq'd awhile back but I don't think I understand the implications of the nerf...can someone use smaller words for me

It's been nerfed twice.

When it first dropped, all units in the codex could use it for all saves. So baneblades could take cover for a 2+ armor save. So GW realized that was dumb and made it infantry only.

But ogryn are infantry and get 4+ invuln Shields, and crusaders get stormshields, which meant using take cover got them up to a 3+ iand 2+ nvuln respectively, and pyschic barrier was a pretty easy 2+ invuln for ogryn, so GW nerfed it again.

Now, it only affects armor saves. So now the most cheesy thing you can do with it is have guardsmen with power armor tier saves taking cover in actual cover, or stormtroopers saving on 2+'s if they take cover in cover.

It should've been that way from the get go, but it lines up with the apparent GW mantra that no invulns are better than a 3+ aside from the odd relic or ability.

The cheesiest thing you can do with Take Cover is to stack Take Cover with Cover, with Psychic Barrier, on Slabshield Bullgryns. Gives you a -1+ save, so against AP -3 weapons you still get a 2+.

I didn't think you could stack cover on cover...but I'm not totally clear on what stacks and what doesn't. For instance I 3D printed a saber weapon platform searchlight. Can I give a unit +1 to hit with that on top of overlapping field of fire? My Vigilus Cadian Bassie double shooting and hitting on 2+ rerolling 1's sounds like fun (albeit expensive in CP).

 necron99 wrote:
I didn't think you could stack cover on cover...but I'm not totally clear on what stacks and what doesn't. For instance I 3D printed a saber weapon platform searchlight. Can I give a unit +1 to hit with that on top of overlapping field of fire? My Vigilus Cadian Bassie double shooting and hitting on 2+ rerolling 1's sounds like fun (albeit expensive in CP).

the take cover stratagem, while sharing a name, is independent of the mechanics for cover. It's kind of shame, because they could have just named it "go to ground"

 necron99 wrote:
I didn't think you could stack cover on cover...but I'm not totally clear on what stacks and what doesn't. For instance I 3D printed a saber weapon platform searchlight. Can I give a unit +1 to hit with that on top of overlapping field of fire? My Vigilus Cadian Bassie double shooting and hitting on 2+ rerolling 1's sounds like fun (albeit expensive in CP).

Yes, it stacks. But note that the searchlight now only applies to infantry units. You can't buff vehicles.

 Peregrine wrote:

 necron99 wrote:
I didn't think you could stack cover on cover...but I'm not totally clear on what stacks and what doesn't. For instance I 3D printed a saber weapon platform searchlight. Can I give a unit +1 to hit with that on top of overlapping field of fire? My Vigilus Cadian Bassie double shooting and hitting on 2+ rerolling 1's sounds like fun (albeit expensive in CP).

Yes, it stacks. But note that the searchlight now only applies to infantry units. You can't buff vehicles.

Nope....missed that. Kinda makes it useless except for HWS units I guess. What about Rapier Laser Destroyers? Damage is a little on the random side but still 2D6 on average with a chance of 3D6 is pretty good in my book.

The Rapier is a vehicle.

Regarding the Defence Searchlight:
It is nice in combination with Plasma weaponry, which can be fired safely against non-hard-to-hit units with the added +1 (and at least a bit less risky against hard to hit Units)
Furthermore (even if that is definitly not the most efficient use) conscript squads benefit a lot from unit wide +1 to hit due to their huge unit size and poor BS.

 Peregrine wrote:
The Rapier is a vehicle.

Oh yeah I saw that....meant as a separate discussion. Haven't seem them on the table much wasn't sure if it was because forge word is expensive/harder to get or if it's just plain bad. Looks like a glass cannon but for 88 points it seems very tempting.