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.

I play both Admech and Imperial knights and between my Dunecrawlers and Questoris Class I have a few miscellaneous heavy stubbers just hanging off the tail end of these big heavies. During game play they occasionally pluck a few models off an infantry squad over six turns but its never something I feel excited to roll for. Honestly it feels more like a chore after having fired all of these incredible powerful cinematic salvos from my units just to be like... oh and I almost forgot... time to roll for the heavy stubber...

It's there for fluff reasons. If you don't want to fire it I'm sure your opponent will be happy to let you not roll those dice.

.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

this.

It’s ‘small arms fire’ when you don’t want to use your big guns.

So if a tank were to come across a few enemy combatants on foot it should it's canon at them? duuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

 Hollow wrote:
So if a tank were to come across a few enemy combatants on foot it should it's canon at them? duuuuuuuuuuuuuuh

Well in 40k logic yes.

They're really useful for chipping away at light infantry or just throwing rounds down range. It's rare, but a "small" gun like a heavy stubber can still lead to surprising results.

Keep in mind, a 4pt heavy stubber has a decent chance of making it's points back against 13 pt marines.

The gun is a concession to real-world military fanboys.

I've often thought a good houserule would be to allow a vehicle's pintle-mounted weapons to fire even if enemies are within 1". Would make such weapons operate more as the fluff implies.

 Duskweaver wrote:
I've often thought a good houserule would be to allow a vehicle's pintle-mounted weapons to fire even if enemies are within 1". Would make such weapons operate more as the fluff implies.

That, or allow them to fire Overwatch at full BS.

You'll honestly be surprised how good Heavy Stubbers can be. I have 2 on each of my Onagers and more often than not they'll be chipping away at infantry.

"Oh it's boring to fire it after all your cannons". That's a pretty piss-poor argument. It's 4 points. You kill a single Guardsman with it, it's paid for itself. You kill a Marine? It's just paid for itself 3 times over. It won't do much against vehicles, but every infantry model killed is one fewer guy who can hurt you back, and makes the squad slightly more likely to fail morale.

I remember certain forgewold units having rules where if they hit with their heavy stubber, then their main cannon got a bonus against the target. These were usually mounted on tank turrets.

The real let down is that these guns are usually obviously much larger than heavy stubbers. The Knight ones are similar in size to some tank turret guns, and yet they are piddly and weak. And while it may make its cost back, it's really not worth those 4 points. I'd rather pay a few more for a heavy bolter equivalent.

Of course, the real problem is that str 4 ap 0 is just crap these days. It's not really the heavy stubber's fault. If we were using pre-8th AP rules, it'd be ignoring guard and ork armor and actually be decent. But even then, its overpriced.

They do look like they should do more, either shots or damage. But hey ho, most of the weapons in the 40k universe do.

 Huron black heart wrote:
They do look like they should do more, either shots or damage. But hey ho, most of the weapons in the 40k universe do.

Just what we need, even more of a "on a 2+ I kill your army" game than 8th edition already is.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Huron black heart wrote:
They do look like they should do more, either shots or damage. But hey ho, most of the weapons in the 40k universe do.

Just what we need, even more of a "on a 2+ I kill your army" game than 8th edition already is.

Well I didn't actually say it's what I wanted, just that most of the weapons look like they'd pulverise an army on their own.

They look cool.

Heavy stubbers on vehicles get back their points easily.
On weapon teams even more so, especially hidden in squads sitting on a objective. It is 4 pts for 3 shots s4 at 36 " , nothing to complain about.

I love shooting those kind of guns. Nothing beats killing a space marine in cover with the big shoota of a trukk or battlewagon.

 Jidmah wrote:
I love shooting those kind of guns. Nothing beats killing a space marine in cover with the big shoota of a trukk or battlewagon.

Nothing beats the light heavy dakka, nothing.

 Duskweaver wrote:
I've often thought a good houserule would be to allow a vehicle's pintle-mounted weapons to fire even if enemies are within 1". Would make such weapons operate more as the fluff implies.

And/or allow them to fire at enemies within 1" of friendly tanks/ knights. That's another use for tank machine guns.

Most of the models that have them date back to prior editions, when both splitting fire was rare, and you had to charge a unit you shot it. So knights were one of the few units that could split the stubber into a different target, but that could be the target they charged.

What are you on about?

Onagers with 6 heavy stubber shots have 18 shots when you bring 3. This means that you've got enough bullets to really put the pain on a Guard squad (or even Marine squad) for like 24 points, and you can still fire your 3d3 superlaser shots elsewhere.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What are you on about?

Onagers with 6 heavy stubber shots have 18 shots when you bring 3. This means that you've got enough bullets to really put the pain on a Guard squad (or even Marine squad) for like 24 points, and you can still fire your 3d3 superlaser shots elsewhere.

Best comment. Trouble is he wants 3 * 3d3 superlaser weapons on his Grimdark medium tank.

I find myself adding Stubbers and Stormbolters to all my vehicles. They really crank the dakka and provide a lot of kills.

I'm sort of wondering when someone in Ad Mech will create a hurricane stubber set up.

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

Those weapons are a lot more effective against infantry than they are in this game. A 50 cal with 1000 rounds could easily chop down 100 men in a matter of minutes. The are in essenense the perfect anti infantry weapon. In this game - a battle cannon is more effective than a machine gun against infantry.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

Those weapons are a lot more effective against infantry than they are in this game. A 50 cal with 1000 rounds could easily chop down 100 men in a matter of minutes. The are in essenense the perfect anti infantry weapon. In this game - a battle cannon is more effective than a machine gun against infantry.

Is it? Assuming equal points, using Imperial Guard statlines (for both attack and defense) and prices (BS 4+, 20 pts for 5 stubbers vs 22 pts for 1 battle cannon, 5+ save at T3)

3.5 shots, 1.75 hits, 1.46 wounds, ~1.5 dead models.
15 shots, 7.5 hits, 5 wounds, ~3.33 dead models.

I'm pretty sure the stubber is the better choice than the battlecannon when firing at infantry.

EDIT:
Also, a .50 cal with 1000 rounds will only kill 100 men in a matter of minutes if the men in question are lined up like it's the Civil War. If they're taking cover, lying on the ground, etc. trying not to get shot, then the .50 will probably use up 1000 rounds before killing 100 men. 100 men properly dispersed in terrain and using cover are very difficult to dislodge without tank cannons, airstrikes, artillery, grenades, etc. etc. Just look at literally every urban fight ever. This is why the concept of employment of the .50 is anti-material (kinda) and suppressive fire, rather than being used as some kind of insta-win weapon vs enemy infantry formations.

I love heavy stubbers on my knights. 1cp to give all of them ap-1? Fantastic. Considering a normal lousy of love has at least 6, they help chew through large units or finish off stragglers.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
I remember certain forgewold units having rules where if they hit with their heavy stubber, then their main cannon got a bonus against the target. These were usually mounted on tank turrets.

The real let down is that these guns are usually obviously much larger than heavy stubbers. The Knight ones are similar in size to some tank turret guns, and yet they are piddly and weak. And while it may make its cost back, it's really not worth those 4 points. I'd rather pay a few more for a heavy bolter equivalent.

Of course, the real problem is that str 4 ap 0 is just crap these days. It's not really the heavy stubber's fault. If we were using pre-8th AP rules, it'd be ignoring guard and ork armor and actually be decent. But even then, its overpriced.

Heavy stubbers were AP6

 bullyboy wrote:
.50 cal and a 7.62mm MG on an M1 Abrams....WHY?????????

because a .50 cal or 7.62mm round is a lot cheaper than the main cannot rounds, you can carry a lot more of them, and something else 40k doesn't represent very well, both can be fired at faster moving targets with a much higher chance of hitting them - e.g. infantry scuttling between buildings, helicopters or other things the main cannon cannot even elevate well enough to hit and similar.