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.

Sinji wrote:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/432400.page

This is a great find! I've been looking for carriage substitutes for a while and this is by far the best I've seen. Sabres on the other hand are incredibly easy to scratch build.

Those ones look fantastic. I just need to figure out how to make them look like Medusa or Earthshakers. I'm trying to think up an idea involving magnets with exchangable barrels or something like that.

It is always allowed, it is more of etiquette than ruling to ask whether you can use FW stuff.

Ok.... BACK on topic with the OP,

I believe that autocannons, heavybolters, and missile launchers are more suited for the upgrade in infantry squads as they can snapshot effectively. Lascannons and mortars are more suited for on their own as they really do not want to move. (So they hide behind an ADS or hop over to a good firing lane and stay put).

Why do you feel that ACs, HBs, and MLs can snapshot more effectively? All of these weapons suffer the same penalty for snapshotting -- specifically that they are reduced to BS1. The resultant loss of firepower is identical for all of them.

I say that because the Autocannon and the HeavyBolter have a higher volume of shots, thus more chances of hitting, and I mentioned the missile launcher because they are cheap enough that it is ok if they miss. Though missile launchers should be stationary normally.

The reason we got onto the topic of Sabres in the first place was that the Heavy Weapons in an Infantry Squad need to be able to support the rest of the army.

The question should be more along the lines of what Heavy Weapons should be taken in Infantry Squads to support the rest of an army.

For example if I spam Manticores I might want to run Lascannons on my Infantry Squads where as if your running 10 Twin-Linked Lascannon Sabres you might be better off running Heavy Bolters in you Infantry Squads instead.

 Da Kommizzar wrote:
I say that because the Autocannon and the HeavyBolter have a higher volume of shots, thus more chances of hitting, and I mentioned the missile launcher because they are cheap enough that it is ok if they miss. Though missile launchers should be stationary normally.

More shots, but less chance of a hit successfully killing anything. Just do the math, the BS 1 penalty hurts all weapons equally. If a weapon is better at BS 3 it's also better at BS 1 and BS 10, and you should never make your weapon choices based on snap fire.

Lathor wrote:

Sabres are in the codex. It clearly states that a Sabre battery replaces a HWS in Codex IG infantry platoon.
As any FAQ or errata updates the codex so can any IA update it.

Show me where the IA books are on the GW site in the FAQ/Errata section and you have a valid point. Show me where in my Codex it mentions Saber platforms. You can't. It is in a IA book that is a FW product that supports alternate units for use outside of the base GW 40k game. GW site gives me Errata and FAQs for 40k, yet I do not see one FW item there that is in the Base Rule Book or a Codex. I mean, isn't Sisters of Battle a White Dwarf codex/update and /that/ is supported on the GW site. Your saying they can not be bothered to do FW as well? Even when they own it, just like WD? Heck, I might as well make up a character/vehicle/unit and it is just as valid as FW apparently in the eyes of GW.... might even be better balanced against the game.

Listen... I honestly do not care if someone used FW units and has FW rules. FW is an option to the game, but not part of the base game because a lot of their stuff is effectively home brewed rules and units. If you and the person your playing with agree to use FW then more power to you because your both on the same page, using the same home brewed rules and units. I mean, I think FW is great and they are really hitting their stride in doing the Badab War and Pre-heresy stuff that is really outside what the 'modern' versions of those armies are in the current codexes. You just can't really do "legions" with Codex Space Marine with how they are organized and used. I love a lot of their models as alternates to stuff I own. But those rules are made with the idea that your doing a FW Pre-heresy list vs another FW Pre-heresy list. Not to show up at your local store tourney and assume /everyone/ is running pre-heresy lists or that the list is balanced against the normal GW codexs, even if it is using the same rules. That is just a misconception that is false and folk need to understand that. I am not anti-FW, I am anti-assumption that FW is balanced and fully integrated into the base game. It isn't.... it is experimental. It is right on the front page of their site.

Sinji... your doing nothing wrong and I think your doing it right by mentioning it. I can only hope others follow your lead.

Show me where in my Codex it mentions a link to the GW site update.

"Heck, I might as well make up a character/vehicle/unit and it is just as valid as FW apparently in the eyes of GW"
Yeah, just print the official GW and W40K logo in it, GW will happily sue all your money

"Not to show up at your local store tourney and assume /everyone/ is running pre-heresy lists or that the list is balanced against the normal GW codexs"
As you don't use Fantasy list in 40K. PH does not claim it's for 40K, why would you do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"it is experimental. It is right on the front page of their site."
Wrong. They have experimental units but they are marked experimental and they have Standard 40K units marked as Standard 40K (and apoc that marked apoc).
Please check an IA book and don't make your thoughts about something you don't know as statements.

It's quite a common mistake to complain about apoc units that they are not for 40K, but no one except the complainer ever mentioned they would be.
So complain about the facts not your misinterpretations.

I think we're done now.

In all the games I've played, having a couple autocannons never did anything. Personally, I can see how they might be viable in all comers taken in serious quantity (they are cheap) - but personally I wouldn't spam guard squads just to have autocannons.

That being said, I think a good all comers list with a few heavy weapons in squads might better take advantage of a plasma gun/lascannon load out, for AP2 anti teq/meq, as well as superior anti vehicle.

Have been looking at the humble missile launcher lately. If anything only because the models are cool, and can be modeled held over the shoulder on a standing guardsmen as well as a team modeled using a tripod mount. (So, per heavy weapons team box, 1 ML guy and 1 HWT) I think the missile launcher would be better served and still balanced with a large blast frag template. Same for mortars even.. and pinning on heavy bolters =D .. but thats just my big imagination.

Autocannons are effective when spammed in HWT's. Unfortunately, HWT's suck and you should never do that.

Lascannons work pretty much everywhere for me. They fill a nice role of AT that seems to be lacking since melta won't be as plentiful.

Missile Launchers have been interesting for me recently. I had quite a few from a modeling project (and the fact you can model them outside a stand) so I decided to run them one day. In my opinion they do a TAC job better than autocannons, Krak missiles that were able to knock out some light vehicles and small template spam. Not the best option, but an interesting one if you want to change up tactics

I think ML would be the best weapon for platoons, them or AC. LCs I think belong on tanks, and AS with them are 75~PPM. AV 12 is pretty reasonable in 6th, and in CC they aren't bad. (Yes, in DoW 2, they are pathetic, but that's beside the point.) Unless you are running an all infantry list, where I like spamming SWT with Meltas/Demo Charges. Lascannons get picked off too easily with the new wound allocation, so I don't run them in platoons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlkTom wrote:

Lathor wrote:

Sabres are in the codex. It clearly states that a Sabre battery replaces a HWS in Codex IG infantry platoon.
As any FAQ or errata updates the codex so can any IA update it.

Show me where the IA books are on the GW site in the FAQ/Errata section and you have a valid point. Show me where in my Codex it mentions Saber platforms. You can't. It is in a IA book that is a FW product that supports alternate units for use outside of the base GW 40k game. GW site gives me Errata and FAQs for 40k, yet I do not see one FW item there that is in the Base Rule Book or a Codex. I mean, isn't Sisters of Battle a White Dwarf codex/update and /that/ is supported on the GW site. Your saying they can not be bothered to do FW as well? Even when they own it, just like WD? Heck, I might as well make up a character/vehicle/unit and it is just as valid as FW apparently in the eyes of GW.... might even be better balanced against the game.

Listen... I honestly do not care if someone used FW units and has FW rules. FW is an option to the game, but not part of the base game because a lot of their stuff is effectively home brewed rules and units. If you and the person your playing with agree to use FW then more power to you because your both on the same page, using the same home brewed rules and units. I mean, I think FW is great and they are really hitting their stride in doing the Badab War and Pre-heresy stuff that is really outside what the 'modern' versions of those armies are in the current codexes. You just can't really do "legions" with Codex Space Marine with how they are organized and used. I love a lot of their models as alternates to stuff I own. But those rules are made with the idea that your doing a FW Pre-heresy list vs another FW Pre-heresy list. Not to show up at your local store tourney and assume /everyone/ is running pre-heresy lists or that the list is balanced against the normal GW codexs, even if it is using the same rules. That is just a misconception that is false and folk need to understand that. I am not anti-FW, I am anti-assumption that FW is balanced and fully integrated into the base game. It isn't.... it is experimental. It is right on the front page of their site.

Sinji... your doing nothing wrong and I think your doing it right by mentioning it. I can only hope others follow your lead.

FW is actually part of standard 40k. You can technically include any or no units from FW, it is just generally considered to be etiquette to ask your opponent first. Tourneys disallow them in order to keep things simple-having rules from 5 or 6 different books is absurd. Also FW is part of GW!