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.

Is there really any reason to take the longrifle on the commander over the repeater. 1 Shot at 30 in with a bit more damage just doesn't really seem worth it when I can get an extra potential three shots at the 16" range I'm going to need to get the other nine guys to in order to shoot. Any thoughts?

I dont play cities, but from my thinking on handgunners it'd almost be the opposite of why would you ever take the repeater over the long rifle.

On average the damage output is the same between the two and both are quite swingy with single stronger shot vs random multiple.

But with the longrifles range you'll likely get more shots in than the repeater. You can also split fire. Handgunner units are cheap so it'd be easy to take a few units and have multiple marksmen. The long range would bw useful for picking off support heroes hanging back, or finishing off a last couple stray wounds on something that didnt quite die from something else.

 Togusa wrote:
Is there really any reason to take the longrifle on the commander over the repeater. 1 Shot at 30 in with a bit more damage just doesn't really seem worth it when I can get an extra potential three shots at the 16" range I'm going to need to get the other nine guys to in order to shoot. Any thoughts?

1 shot dam 2 is equal to 2 shots dam 1. So in average both are actually same except for those corner cases where you need to do EXACTLY 1 damage and 2 is worthless or bit more common case of -1 dam targets. You have potential for 3 damage with repeater but of course you are just as likely ending up with 1...

So equal damage output, one has nearly twice the range and ability to ignore look out sir with no drawbacks.

So...why on earth you would take repeater? Well unless you are list tailoring vs coalesced seraphon/gotrek. And even there ability to fire from turn 1 rather is helpful.

I see no reason other than visual preference, model availability in ones existing collection, or something narrative, NOT to take the longrifle.
Why wouldn't I want the options for a 30" shot that ignores Look Out Sir?

ccs wrote:
I see no reason other than visual preference, model availability in ones existing collection, or something narrative, NOT to take the longrifle.
Why wouldn't I want the options for a 30" shot that ignores Look Out Sir?

I guess to me it's because 1 4+ to hit, 4+ wound -2 D2 shot doesn't really seem to be all that helpful as opposed to getting more potential shots. Most things I see in games have way more wounds and wards to make it worth it to me.

But I appreciate the advice all! Thanks!

Again shot and damage is almost interchangeable. Doesn't matter do you have 1 shot 2 damage or 2 shots 1damage unless you face damage reducer or need to cause exactly 1damage and no more

tneva82 wrote:
Again shot and damage is almost interchangeable. Doesn't matter do you have 1 shot 2 damage or 2 shots 1damage unless you face damage reducer or need to cause exactly 1damage and no more

Yeah, this basically. Given that in AoS excess damage rolls over to the next model too, unlike in 40k.

Multiple shots is of course more consistent at doing SOME damage, but on average its the same. Then you add in the range and then long rifle seems like a no brainer.

One factor is damage reducers. Particularly thunder lizards are particular worry. That's one reason why new dragons might take sword as well. Whether enough of worry to take worse weapon vs other foes though. And -1 attack debuffs exists

tneva82 wrote:
One factor is damage reducers. Particularly thunder lizards are particular worry. That's one reason why new dragons might take sword as well. Whether enough of worry to take worse weapon vs other foes though. And -1 attack debuffs exists

Indeed. Army wide damage reduction is such bad design imo

For added fun...seraphon damage result works differently with mw's than others(like gotrek). Others mw is reduced as usual. Scaly skin got specific exception. Why o why. Scaly skin is one of my pet peeves on so many levels

tneva82 wrote:
For added fun...seraphon damage result works differently with mw's than others(like gotrek). Others mw is reduced as usual. Scaly skin got specific exception. Why o why. Scaly skin is one of my pet peeves on so many levels

Oof... I didn't actually know that, but just checked the FAQs and you are correct. That's horrible.

Like if it was on selected units then fine. But army wide, it's just a huge FU to any army whose damage output and point costs are based on D2 weapons... ugh I hate it haha

Sorry, getting off topic!

Wait... are you guys lamenting that Coalesced don't get to reduce MWs on top of their already overpowered allegiance mechanic?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wait... are you guys lamenting that Coalesced don't get to reduce MWs on top of their already overpowered allegiance mechanic?

No, we're lamenting that they DO get to reduce mortal wounds, if those MWs are generated by a weapon that does multiple damage.

 Stux wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wait... are you guys lamenting that Coalesced don't get to reduce MWs on top of their already overpowered allegiance mechanic?

No, we're lamenting that they DO get to reduce mortal wounds, if those MWs are generated by a weapon that does multiple damage.

???

Q: Does the Coalesced battle trait ‘Scaly Skin’ apply to mortal wounds?
A: No.

Ah so it's not been a thing since the August FAQ? Phew!

I was just going off what tneva82 above said, and there were search results that verified it but must have been out of date.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wait... are you guys lamenting that Coalesced don't get to reduce MWs on top of their already overpowered allegiance mechanic?

Lamenting rather that the rules don't work consistently.

What difference does rule text on coalesced differ on any other damage reducting rule? Nothing. Why they then work differently? Because GW rule writing is crap.

If you have two identical wording they should work identically. But they don't. Because GW.

Reduce damage by 1.
Redude damage by 1.

Logically these 2 should work same way. But thanks to GW being GW they don't. One reduces MW's by 1. One doesn't. Good luck figuring out why one doesn't and one does.

So what about recommended unit size, bricks of 30 handgunners, or do people run them MSU?

 Togusa wrote:
So what about recommended unit size, bricks of 30 handgunners, or do people run them MSU?

MSU means more free leader weapons. But it does reduce the effect of command abilities.

Handgunners get +1 to hit when at 10+ models. You can only issue 1 All Out Attack per phase, but its redundant while at 10 models+. That seems like an argument for large units, but if you are running MSU then chances are your opponent isn't spread damage all over your units and instead is trying to focus down specific ones. In which case you likely don't have that many units below 10 models at any given time.

With changes to Unleash Hell, only models close to the charging unit get to shoot too, which reduces its impact on very large units.

So yeah, I THINK MSU is still the way to go, but huge caveat that I haven't played them this edition yet.

If you have the general the lack of all out attack can be nullified a bit.

Smart opponent does spread damage though especially for battleshock. But overall the handgunners are more suited for MSU over crossbows as the bonus on having 10+ models is a) bigger b) more likely to come due to longer range(since you also need to be stationary)