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.

True, you do have a point about skill level always being a random factor. However, with all good experiments there is always a stage that needs to account for chaos. Failing to do so...well it would be bad >_>

Furthermore, I think you misunderstood when I said "threatening reach". What I meant was that while they will sit there once you get into their movement/assault range there's a good chance they'll drive right up into your face, unload, and let the slaughter begin. That would make your meltaguns a bit moot because the enemy no longer needs their transports as they have engaged your units successfully.

Maybe it was the wording, but by sit on their objective I meant they'll be forcing you to come to them where they have a longer stick than you. The stick being their possible movement and deployment of troops.

Oh, are you implying that shooting a unit down to the last man doesn't help at all? If I clear off your objective with long range fire and still have mine...

Let's pretend there's an objective in the middle. The squad in a transport gets there first, because they're faster, or just because they went first. You have to get rid of them. How do you do it? Please provide specifics, not generalities. I'll agree that one specific example does not prove something, but the lack of ability to provide a single specific example in support does strongly suggest a weakness in a theory. "Hit them with a variety of short range options" is not very specific.


Ailaros, I feel I have given you the benefit of the doubt up to this point, but you claim that you don't see a problem with basing your armys anti-tank on 6 man teams of guardsmen with extremely close range weapons. If you fail to see why this is a problem, it is telling in either your ability to understand the game or interest in actually having an exchange of ideas.

Nevertheless, here is why it is bad:

T3, 5+ save guardsmen are very easy to kill. Special weapon teams have high weapon/spare bodies ratios, so your opponent kills lots of weapons by killing only a few models. These teams have very short ranged guns, which means they must endure multiple rounds of fire before they get a chance to use their guns, and are able to be targeted by nearly every weapon in the game before they can engage at close range. A single heavy bolter stands a good chance of causing a leadership check.

Small units often have a place in armies, but these are usually either tougher, faster, or longer ranged, reducing the effectiveness, quantity, or amount of incoming fire that can come their way. The squad you advocate has none of these advantages.

A minor note:
One only needs to be at the objective starting turn 5.
So getting there 'first' isn't always a good thing, while getting there last wins (or ties up) games.

Tyranids can deal very well with vehicles (only) at such short ranges as Ailaros is describing.

That is one reason Tyranids are horrible at dealing with vehicles.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Furthermore, I think you misunderstood when I said "threatening reach". What I meant was that while they will sit there once you get into their movement/assault range there's a good chance they'll drive right up into your face, unload, and let the slaughter begin.

Yeah, but this is a matter for the movement phase. Transports or not, units can always get up close and slaughter. The real question is "who is better at close-ranged slaughter?", not "who can try and prevent close-range fights at all?", because a determined opponent is always going to be able to get his units close to something, whether through various means (running, outflanking, etc.), or through things like the fact that objectives can't move, and so are easy to catch, even on foot.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:That would make your meltaguns a bit moot because the enemy no longer needs their transports as they have engaged your units successfully.

Sure. You could even say that killing the transport itself is moot once it drops off its cargo as all it's doing is driving around blocking LOS and other non-objective things. That said, they are still obnoxious, and, more importantly, without the meltaguns there, then they could just sit there with the troops in the transports on the obejective and not get out until the coast is clear. Taking some short ranged firepower I think is worth spending the points on to prevent this scenario.

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Oh, are you implying that shooting a unit down to the last man doesn't help at all? If I clear off your objective with long range fire and still have mine...

No, I like wiping units completely out as much as the next person.

The math shows that you need to spend a LOT of points to do the damage with long-ranged weapons to get the job done, though. I mean, if I throw a 30-man blob squad with a commissar on an objective in cover with an officer nearby giving them a 2+ cover, no amount of long range shooting is going to dislodge that over the course of a regular game.

Getting flamered or assaulted or something on the other hand, would be tough, but it's really the only chance you'd have.

Biophysical wrote:Let's pretend there's an objective in the middle. The squad in a transport gets there first, because they're faster, or just because they went first. You have to get rid of them. How do you do it? Please provide specifics, not generalities. I'll agree that one specific example does not prove something, but the lack of ability to provide a single specific example in support does strongly suggest a weakness in a theory. "Hit them with a variety of short range options" is not very specific.

Well, let's see, I charge a S10 monstrous creature in there, or I drop pod some combi-flamer sternguard, or I FRFSRF with 40 guardsmen, or I charge in with assault troops or bikes, or I pound them off with guard artillery and clean up the rest with short ranged weapons, or I open up a 'gate and charge wyches through, or I have demons pop up and assault out of the warp, or I charge in death company with an apothecary and a sanguinius priest, or I charge in and blast them with vindicators, or I bring up a LR and charge them with SS/TH terminators.

How many more specific examples do you need for ways to kill stuff at close range?

Biophysical wrote:but you claim that you don't see a problem with basing your armys anti-tank on 6 man teams of guardsmen with extremely close range weapons.

Firstly, this example was given to satisfy a points-effective alternative, not the most durable possible alternative.

Secondly, guard units are cheap, which means you can take a lot of them, which means it doesn't matter if you loose a unit here or there.

Thirdly, keeping your units alive is something that a good commander needs to do regardless of if your opponent's troops choice are in transports or not.

Fourthly, stopping a transport in no way neutralizes your opponent's units' ability to kill your stuff.

If you can't keep your critical units alive long enough, you can fix this problem in the list-building and movement phase.

I'm sorry if this is coming across as unintelligible to you, but I don't think me being skeptical of your apparent claim that you can't handle your opponents without taking out your opponent's transports is a sign of idiocy on my part.

Sanctjud wrote:A minor note:
One only needs to be at the objective starting turn 5.
So getting there 'first' isn't always a good thing, while getting there last wins (or ties up) games.

Totally.

You don't need to drop your troops off on an objecetive turn 1, and then just sit there getting shot at for 5 more turns. You just need to take them off an objective, or show up BEFORE your opponent, not necessarily turn 1.

Getting there last can be good, but only if you get there in such a way where I can't then attack the units that were dropped off before the game ends. In this case, it's not who gets there first or last, it's who is left standing there at the end.

kirsanth wrote:Tyranids can deal very well with vehicles (only) at such short ranges as Ailaros is describing.

That is one reason Tyranids are horrible at dealing with vehicles.

I highly disagree. Zoanthrope lancing, high strength attacks on flying bugs, and just MCs in general do terrible damage to vehicles. I lost this game and this game(for just a couple examples) because of what MCs can do to tanks, and these were played back in the day where you had to charge front armor.

Plus, MCs are great objective campers because they're so hard to kill. Some of them are even scoring.

Sanctjud wrote:A minor note:
One only needs to be at the objective starting turn 5.
So getting there 'first' isn't always a good thing, while getting there last wins (or ties up) games.

Nevertheless, one will have to get that objective in order to win (or tie). The situation remains valid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:

Biophysical wrote:Let's pretend there's an objective in the middle. The squad in a transport gets there first, because they're faster, or just because they went first. You have to get rid of them. How do you do it? Please provide specifics, not generalities. I'll agree that one specific example does not prove something, but the lack of ability to provide a single specific example in support does strongly suggest a weakness in a theory. "Hit them with a variety of short range options" is not very specific.

Well, let's see, I charge a S10 monstrous creature in there, or I drop pod some combi-flamer sternguard, or I FRFSRF with 40 guardsmen, or I charge in with assault troops or bikes, or I pound them off with guard artillery and clean up the rest with short ranged weapons, or I open up a 'gate and charge wyches through, or I have demons pop up and assault out of the warp, or I charge in death company with an apothecary and a sanguinius priest, or I charge in and blast them with vindicators, or I bring up a LR and charge them with SS/TH terminators.

How many more specific examples do you need for ways to kill stuff at close range?

All of the examples you just described either A) don't hurt the transport at all, or B) kill the transport and leave the attacking unit open to short range counterattack from the transported unit. The transport has protected its troops from the initial assault, and leaves attackers open to counter-attack. Of course other units will be involved, that's why it's a board game and fun to play, but most generals would be happy to have an opponent commit the powerful close range forces you just described to kill a transport. You want weapons to kill transports just so you can get units like those in your list to beat on the passengers.

Ailaros]

Biophysical wrote:but you claim that you don't see a problem with basing your armys anti-tank on 6 man teams of guardsmen with extremely close range weapons.

Firstly, this example was given to satisfy a points-effective alternative, not the most durable possible alternative.

Secondly, guard units are cheap, which means you can take a lot of them, which means it doesn't matter if you loose a unit here or there.

Thirdly, keeping your units alive is something that a good commander needs to do regardless of if your opponent's troops choice are in transports or not.

Fourthly, stopping a transport in no way neutralizes your opponent's units' ability to kill your stuff.

If you can't keep your critical units alive long enough, you can fix this problem in the list-building and movement phase.

I'm sorry if this is coming across as unintelligible to you, but I don't think me being skeptical of your apparent claim that you can't handle your opponents without taking out your opponent's transports is a sign of idiocy on my part.

First: If you get more durable meltas you get less meltas, the critique stands.

Second: Except in the third of your games that are kill point missions.

Third: Of course.

Fourth: This is false. if they are pure assault units, making them move 6+D6" per turn compared to 12" with a 2" deployment halo from the transport hull can very often mean one turn longer before assault, and multiple more turns of shooting them.

I've never said you can't win without killing transports, it's just a lot harder against a good opponent. I don't doubt your intelligence because you disagree with a claim I never made. I have provided a situation where the math suggests autocannons are comparable to your preferred meltagun. You have not refuted that situation, or provided a counter situation.

Ailaros wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Tyranids can deal very well with vehicles (only) at such short ranges as Ailaros is describing.

That is one reason Tyranids are horrible at dealing with vehicles.

I highly disagree. Zoanthrope lancing, high strength attacks on flying bugs, and just MCs in general do terrible damage to vehicles.

So you disagree that at short range Tyranids are good at killing vehicles and as proof you site Tyranids being excellent at killing vehicles at short range?

Just to be clear, we are assuming that the defending army, the one without transports, are the imperial guard right?

Sgt.Sunshine wrote:Just to be clear, we are assuming that the defending army, the one without transports, are the imperial guard right?

In this particular case, the OP plays blood angels. The point I'm making counts for all armies, though.

kirsanth wrote:So you disagree that at short range Tyranids are good at killing vehicles and as proof you site Tyranids being excellent at killing vehicles at short range?

I was disagreeing with your statement that tyranid are bad against vehicles because they only have short-ranged options.

Biophysical wrote:A) don't hurt the transport at all

That's because I was talking about the cargo, although if you can't take down a transport with a S10 MC, I feel for you. With regard to the transports...

I could use sternguard with combi-meltas, or guard SWSs or PCSs or CCSs with meltaguns, or priests, or anything with krak grenades, or anything with meltabombs, or MCs or anything with a power fist.

Seriously, there is stuff in every army that can take down transports at close range.

Biophysical wrote:kill the transport and leave the attacking unit open to short range counterattack from the transported unit. Of course other units will be involved.

Exactly, other units will be involved, care of combined arms.

Biophysical wrote:but most generals would be happy to have an opponent commit the powerful close range forces you just described to kill a transport.

Wait, so now transport army generals would be happy to lose their transports?

Or are you making a point about points-effectiveness? If that's the case, if I were a transport commander, I would MUCH rather my opponent waste hundreds of points peeling the paint on my 50 point transports than I would like for my troops to get anihilated when they pop out of the transport on arrival.

Biophysical wrote:If you get more durable meltas you get less meltas, the critique stands.

HWSs are even LESS durable than are SWSs. Unless you're talking about tanks, which are MUCH more expensive (and not necessarily durable, as running them into meltaguns would show)

Biophysical wrote:Except in the third of your games that are kill point missions.

All guard armies have problems with kill points regardless of the opponents they face. What does this have to do with transports?

Biophysical wrote:if they are pure assault units, making them move 6+D6" per turn compared to 12" with a 2" deployment halo from the transport hull can very often mean one turn longer before assault, and multiple more turns of shooting them.

Why would you rather spend a lot more points to fire crappy weapons at your opponent's units (even though you get an extra turn to do it), than to spend fewer points to fire good weapons at your opponent's units?

Biophysical wrote:I have provided a situation where the math suggests autocannons are comparable to your preferred meltagun. You have not refuted that situation, or provided a counter situation.

Firstly, I have provided a lot of situations. I even threw some in at the top of this post.

Secondly, I haven't bothered with your math, because your math wasn't contributing to the discussion. If you really must drag it out...

Against AV11, 3x autocannons puts down 3 hits, which wrecks or immobilizes .58, .29 when they use smoke. Against the same target type, 3 meltaguns puts down 1.5 hits which wrecks or immobilizes .69, .34 when they use smoke. Against AV12, the autocannons do .333 while the meltagun downs .63

Other than that meltaguns are better at killing transports except against the flimsiest targets (I'd like to see an autocannon stop a land raider), which LOTS of things can kill, what are we really learning from these numbers?

In the case of autocannons, the whole reason to take them is to stop your opponent in the turn or two before they arrive at your lines. In order to stop a rhino, you need to spend 150 points to stop a 40 point transport. In the case of a chimera, you have to spend 225 to stop a 55 point transport. Therefore, you need to pay a premium (to the tune of 300%-400%) to get the job done. To what end?

In the case of meltaguns, if you want them absolutely dead in a single go, then yeah, you need to spend more than the transport, but not as much (especially once we start talking about more serious transports like chimeras, eldar vehicles and the like). Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to. If you really want to continue to pursue this, I'd note that autocannons are bunk against everything non-transport, while the meltagun is great against lots of things, providing even more points-effectiveness from elsewhere.

And this is just one specific example. A priest charging in with an eviscerator does more damage than either of these two. Likewise a DCCW dread can rip a transport apart with ease. Or, as stated, I can ignore the transport once it's unloaded its cargo and destroy the guys who got out, in which case my opponent just has a worthless transport left, and I still have the objective.

But muddling around in the numbers is still missing my point alltogether. Why spend ANY points to take down your opponent's stuff at range? Why not ONLY spend points to take out the cargo (other than the one scenario mentioned last post where they don't get out voluntarily)?

Good players will be able to adapt to losing a few dozen points in transports, and they can still do just fine, given that the units inside are unscathed, and are now only facing off against crappy long-ranged firepower. I honestly fail to see what stopping your opponent at length does, other than inconvenience him.

Meanwhile, you could have spent the points you spent on long-range guns (which why are we even assume are getting to shoot every turn? Does not terrain block LOS? Does not your opponent drop pod?) in order to spend those points on actually killing his units. Every point spent on a squad with an autocannon is a point I could have spent on a tank with a splat cannon or a CC uber-destroyer, or even just flamers and other special weapons.

Why is it worth the cost?

To me, it isn't, so I choose to spend the points better elsewhere. Unless someone can come up with why you get a lot of value for the points you spent shooting his transports, I will continue not to, and will discourage other people from doing it as well.

Question, is your scenario working under the assumption that only one transport is coming towards you?

Not necessarily, but it scales.

I mean, you need to take a certain number of autocannons PER TRANSPORT. For the sake of simplicity, I've been assuming one, but there is a ratio built in, so it scales.

Oh alright, it was just a bit odd because you kept working under the assumption that the rest of your units would be free to assist against one transport and not...you know...being attacked as well. Just wanted to clarify. I'm just going to assume the scale works out somehow.

Ailaros wrote:

kirsanth wrote:So you disagree that at short range Tyranids are good at killing vehicles and as proof you site Tyranids being excellent at killing vehicles at short range?

I was disagreeing with your statement that tyranid are bad against vehicles because they only have short-ranged options.

Gotcha. Glad I had you to tell me, because having played Tyranids soley for these years I had that noticed mech armies are a lot harder with 5e and the new 'dex. Good to know it is just me.

Most folks I know would never get a vehicle into charge range of a carnifex, unless they wanted to kill the 'fex with the unit inside--because that is exactly what happens when you destroy transports in an assault.

Sure, Zoanthropes in a pod will kill a vehicle, but it is very rare for them to get a second chance.

There is a reason Hive Guard/Tyranofex's are in most Tyranid lists.
Range.

Ailaros wrote:Secondly, I haven't bothered with your math, because your math wasn't contributing to the discussion. If you really must drag it out...

His argument was sound, and you ignored it because it didn't agree with your argument.

Against AV11, 3x autocannons puts down 3 hits, which wrecks or immobilizes .58, .29 when they use smoke. Against the same target type, 3 meltaguns puts down 1.5 hits which wrecks or immobilizes .69, .34 when they use smoke. Against AV12, the autocannons do .333 while the meltagun downs .63

Other than that meltaguns are better at killing transports except against the flimsiest targets (I'd like to see an autocannon stop a land raider), which LOTS of things can kill, what are we really learning from these numbers?

Stuff, we are learning stuff.

Other than that you're agreeing with what has been argued against you, while presenting those same arguments as supporting your position. You also say, "So what?", an awful lot. Here are your numbers organized in a fashion which is clear and concise.

vs. AV11
Ac= .58/.29
Me= .69/.34

vs. AV12
Ac= .33
Me= .63

Besides the problem that you're ignoring half of the factors involved in those weapons, mainly in range, you're agreeing with Biophysical if I am not mistaken. The AC fires for more turns at a longer range, and is only slightly less effective against AV11 (but it fires more... but you're free to ignore that, as usual), and best not used against AV12 if at all possible. You can bring different ranged weapons at that point, to deal with the same targets mentioned at range.

You're still providing very little in terms of solid arguments, and avoiding examples and test games because... well honestly I don't know. You're just avoiding it.

In the case of autocannons, the whole reason to take them is to stop your opponent in the turn or two before they arrive at your lines. In order to stop a rhino, you need to spend 150 points to stop a 40 point transport. In the case of a chimera, you have to spend 225 to stop a 55 point transport. Therefore, you need to pay a premium (to the tune of 300%-400%) to get the job done. To what end?

To the end that your gaming style simply doesn't care about.
The one in which you don't care what the transports do, because "You'll shoot them eventually, and all will go according to plan".

In the case of meltaguns, if you want them absolutely dead in a single go, then yeah, you need to spend more than the transport, but not as much (especially once we start talking about more serious transports like chimeras, eldar vehicles and the like). Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to. If you really want to continue to pursue this, I'd note that autocannons are bunk against everything non-transport, while the meltagun is great against lots of things, providing even more points-effectiveness from elsewhere.

Good job, you broke your own argument and people are pretty much fed up going over the same exact things, getting the same exact lame responses.

And this is just one specific example. A priest charging in with an eviscerator does more damage than either of these two. Likewise a DCCW dread can rip a transport apart with ease. Or, as stated, I can ignore the transport once it's unloaded its cargo and destroy the guys who got out, in which case my opponent just has a worthless transport left, and I still have the objective.

But muddling around in the numbers is still missing my point alltogether. Why spend ANY points to take down your opponent's stuff at range? Why not ONLY spend points to take out the cargo (other than the one scenario mentioned last post where they don't get out voluntarily)?

I honestly have no idea what game you are playing at this point. You refuse to have test games, ignore mathhammer because only yours is right (or something), and respond with misleading and circular commentary.

You might as well respond by saying "No." in many of your posts.

Good players will be able to adapt to losing a few dozen points in transports, and they can still do just fine, given that the units inside are unscathed, and are now only facing off against crappy long-ranged firepower. I honestly fail to see what stopping your opponent at length does, other than inconvenience him.

Again, what game are you playing? Why doesn't this make transports a waste of points in your mind? If I recall your previous responses, they were something along the lines of, they are and they aren't, but it doesn't matter because all important parts of the game take place at ranges under a foot.

Meanwhile, you could have spent the points you spent on long-range guns (which why are we even assume are getting to shoot every turn? Does not terrain block LOS? Does not your opponent drop pod?) in order to spend those points on actually killing his units. Every point spent on a squad with an autocannon is a point I could have spent on a tank with a splat cannon or a CC uber-destroyer, or even just flamers and other special weapons.

Do so and enjoy your games, but don't expect to convince many people that your arguments are sound.

Why is it worth the cost?

For reasons that you simply don't give a flying feth about.

To me, it isn't, so I choose to spend the points better elsewhere. Unless someone can come up with why you get a lot of value for the points you spent shooting his transports, I will continue not to, and will discourage other people from doing it as well.

You are completely entitled to your opinion, and we will continue to discourage you from spreading your concepts, for fear that all noobs will be scraped by the might of more experienced players... mainly due to reliance on weapons that cannot fill every role, for every army.

I'll try to limit my responses to only the most ridiculous suggestions on your part.

Ailaros wrote:In the case of meltaguns, if you want them absolutely dead in a single go, then yeah, you need to spend more than the transport, but not as much (especially once we start talking about more serious transports like chimeras, eldar vehicles and the like). Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to. If you really want to continue to pursue this, I'd note that autocannons are bunk against everything non-transport, while the meltagun is great against lots of things, providing even more points-effectiveness from elsewhere.

I lol'd.

On a side note, I'd just like to point out that you'll never get close to an Eldar tank unless they want you to, and that Meltaguns lose their second die against their transports. What else? Storm Ravens, Monoliths. Can't Black Templar make their Landraiders special? Or was that only for Lance weapons?

For your arguement about Deepstriking or drop-podding armies being an issue for long ranged weapons: the enemy only comes in half at a time. Now if you take only short ranged weapons, you can only bring your local resources to bear. Even against a drop-podding/infiltrating/Deepstriking army long ranged weapons give you an advantage: you can still hit anything he's put on the field. If he puts a Dreadnought where you have no Meltaguns, or a Stormraven where you have only Meltaguns, a well balanced weapons load-out will let you meet these challenges. I don't even care if you read this, I'm writing this for my sake, not yours.

Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to

Damn it, I thought I could manage to stay out of this thread, but this dragged me right back in

I'm going to assume you're talking about the transport here, and not the content (but that would be even better )
Disregarding all the useful stuff the transport can do, because you just say "it won't help winning the game" (hint, it actually will), there is one more issue that will actually help your opponent win the game directly. They can contest objectives, or even tank-shock you off the objectives.

DarkHound wrote:

Ailaros wrote:In the case of meltaguns, if you want them absolutely dead in a single go, then yeah, you need to spend more than the transport, but not as much (especially once we start talking about more serious transports like chimeras, eldar vehicles and the like). Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to. If you really want to continue to pursue this, I'd note that autocannons are bunk against everything non-transport, while the meltagun is great against lots of things, providing even more points-effectiveness from elsewhere.

I lol'd.

You're not the only one...

Illumini wrote:

Plus, once a transport has dropped off it's cargo, there are few reasons to even bother with the cargo at all, so you don't even need to kill it if you don't want to

Damn it, I thought I could manage to stay out of this thread, but this dragged me right back in

I'm going to assume you're talking about the transport here, and not the content (but that would be even better )
Disregarding all the useful stuff the transport can do, because you just say "it won't help winning the game" (hint, it actually will), there is one more issue that will actually help your opponent win the game directly. They can contest objectives, or even tank-shock you off the objectives.

As craftworld Chedd-ar, that IS the game for me...

Ailaros In the words of nancy kerrigan " Why! Why!" . The guard dex has so many cheap heavy weapons Why! not take a few. And good luck with your meltaguns against my pillbox "transports", ill have so many HB, ML and possible HS shots into you that your foot troops will fold. At that point i can send my valks or vends to contest or cap. I think you have to have some way to stun/immobilize/destroy enemy transports in the early turns, just to disrupt your enemy's plans. The squad that is on foot after thier tranny gets pwned is dead meat walking across the board. With my mass of "inefective" weapons HB/ML/AC i can kill PA troops on foot they fail 1/3 of thier saves, and that fire is just from chimeras with IS with auto cannons in them. You can load out many Chimeras this way for cheap and have plenty of points for valk/vend or heavy support.

GeneralDisaray wrote:Ailaros In the words of nancy kerrigan " Why! Why!" . The guard dex has so many cheap heavy weapons Why! not take a few. And good luck with your meltaguns against my pillbox "transports", ill have so many HB, ML and possible HS shots into you that your foot troops will fold. At that point i can send my valks or vends to contest or cap. I think you have to have some way to stun/immobilize/destroy enemy transports in the early turns, just to disrupt your enemy's plans. The squad that is on foot after thier tranny gets pwned is dead meat walking across the board. With my mass of "inefective" weapons HB/ML/AC i can kill PA troops on foot they fail 1/3 of thier saves, and that fire is just from chimeras with IS with auto cannons in them. You can load out many Chimeras this way for cheap and have plenty of points for valk/vend or heavy support.

A very valid post that the OP should consider.