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.

Poly Ranger wrote:
So you agree that grav guns wont be the new sliced bread against tanks that many believe them to be?

They will be, but if you really-really want those tanks dead then you still have to take melta weapons. Grav weapons are brutal against vehicles (two 6's and the vehicle is dead - that's huge!), and they will remain the no1 "sliced bread" biker special weapon unless GW removes their quasi-ignores cover or fixes the HP loss from stacking immo effects.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Secondly unless running whitescars, sternguard in pod have a huge advantage over melta bikes, and that is first blood. Sternguard have a nice possibility of getting first blood because they will be in melta range. Bikes, will not.

Well, if you run bikes, you run White Scars. And if you play for "nice possibilities" then even your non-WS bikes can have first blood from stray Rhinos, weakened infantry squads and such. They have a "nice possibility" to do that .

Yeh I suppose they do. Whats this 2 6's and the vehicle is dead?You basing that on a 2hp vehicle or have I been proper daft and missed a massivly important part of their rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh cr*p just realised... you're talking about immobilising an immobilized vehicle! I have been proper daft. Ok im a convert!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just 1 more thing, could you please direct me to the faq which says they ignore cover please? This will be fantastic against skimmers!

Poly Ranger wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just 1 more thing, could you please direct me to the faq which says they ignore cover please? This will be fantastic against skimmers!

It is not a FAQ thing. According to the BRB, vehicles can only take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. Grav weapons cause neither, so no cover saves RAW.

That is magic!

 AtoMaki wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just 1 more thing, could you please direct me to the faq which says they ignore cover please? This will be fantastic against skimmers!

It is not a FAQ thing. According to the BRB, vehicles can only take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. Grav weapons cause neither, so no cover saves RAW.

But you can save against immobilisation from difficult terrain, which is not a glancing or penetrating hit either. (see Dark Eldar faq, which was about the only time it was relevant until more recently).

 Daba wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just 1 more thing, could you please direct me to the faq which says they ignore cover please? This will be fantastic against skimmers!

It is not a FAQ thing. According to the BRB, vehicles can only take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. Grav weapons cause neither, so no cover saves RAW.

But you can save against immobilisation from difficult terrain, which is not a glancing or penetrating hit either. (see Dark Eldar faq, which was about the only time it was relevant until more recently).

The Dark Eldar FAQ specifically refers to flickerfield saves (it even calls it "flickerfield save" instead of "invulnerable save"). So yeah, you can take the 5+ invu provided by the flickerfield but it has nothing to do with cover saves... Or the damage effect caused by grav weapons for that matter, as the question is about the immo effect caused by a failed Dangerous Terrain test.

Is there anything else, besides Sternguard, that are effective in a drop pod.

Razerous wrote:
Is there anything else, besides Sternguard, that are effective in a drop pod.

Assault Squad with two flamers. Comes to 95 points.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

Razerous wrote:
Is there anything else, besides Sternguard, that are effective in a drop pod.

Assault Squad with two flamers. Comes to 95 points.

Melta dreads and/or ironclads are another drop pod favorite.

The humble tactical squad works well in filler pods for a late game objective grabber.

TFC aren't effective *in* their pods, but they're a great unit and a good way to pad out the number of pods you can bring.

Also tac squads in ultramarines would do well in drop pods.

Blow their tactic on the turn they drop in for some twin-linking goodness and go to town.

Then have the specialist troops in the second wave once you have de-meched some targets.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Yeh I suppose they do. Whats this 2 6's and the vehicle is dead?You basing that on a 2hp vehicle or have I been proper daft and missed a massivly important part of their rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh cr*p just realised... you're talking about immobilising an immobilized vehicle! I have been proper daft. Ok im a convert!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just 1 more thing, could you please direct me to the faq which says they ignore cover please? This will be fantastic against skimmers!

AFAIK vehicles may take cover saves against penetrating and glancing hits, grav cause neither.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Bike grav guns are fantasic against a lot of things, but combimelta sternguard are 10times better against tanks. Its all a matter of taking the right unit for the right job.

There is less of a need for the melta-drop sternguard because there are less tanks in the game. There is really only 1 army build that the sternguard are useful against -- wave serpents. Even then the serpent player can just keep his serpents moving making the melta shots very limited in value (a 3+ cover save and serpent shield means 4 melta shots are not very scary)

However, assaults are very dangerous. Any marine can threaten a vehicle (land raider, monoliths, flyers excepted, AV13 walkers)

Yea, basic, basic sternguard units will I think be quite good, throw in 2 weapons to taste(my fav is heavy flamers) and then go to town.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daba wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just 1 more thing, could you please direct me to the faq which says they ignore cover please? This will be fantastic against skimmers!

It is not a FAQ thing. According to the BRB, vehicles can only take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. Grav weapons cause neither, so no cover saves RAW.

But you can save against immobilisation from difficult terrain, which is not a glancing or penetrating hit either. (see Dark Eldar faq, which was about the only time it was relevant until more recently).

The Dark Eldar FAQ specifically refers to flickerfield saves (it even calls it "flickerfield save" instead of "invulnerable save"). So yeah, you can take the 5+ invu provided by the flickerfield but it has nothing to do with cover saves... Or the damage effect caused by grav weapons for that matter, as the question is about the immo effect caused by a failed Dangerous Terrain test.

That's because then, there were no other saves you could take against that test (cover only applied in the shooting phase for example). It is also a FAQ, not an errata. Flickerfields don't save 5+ invulnerable save, that may be taken against Dangerous Terrain; it says 5+ invulnerable save only — in effect, it's saying that's how the game works - you can take invulnerable saves against this sort of damage.

It sets the precedence that you can take saves at all against damage from sources that are not glancing or penetrating hits.

Since cover save is just a save that applies in the shooting phase, it still follows all mechanics of a save and is called a save.

 Daba wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daba wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just 1 more thing, could you please direct me to the faq which says they ignore cover please? This will be fantastic against skimmers!

It is not a FAQ thing. According to the BRB, vehicles can only take cover saves against glancing and penetrating hits. Grav weapons cause neither, so no cover saves RAW.

But you can save against immobilisation from difficult terrain, which is not a glancing or penetrating hit either. (see Dark Eldar faq, which was about the only time it was relevant until more recently).

The Dark Eldar FAQ specifically refers to flickerfield saves (it even calls it "flickerfield save" instead of "invulnerable save"). So yeah, you can take the 5+ invu provided by the flickerfield but it has nothing to do with cover saves... Or the damage effect caused by grav weapons for that matter, as the question is about the immo effect caused by a failed Dangerous Terrain test.

That's because then, there were no other saves you could take against that test (cover only applied in the shooting phase for example). It is also a FAQ, not an errata. Flickerfields don't save 5+ invulnerable save, that may be taken against Dangerous Terrain; it says 5+ invulnerable save only — in effect, it's saying that's how the game works - you can take invulnerable saves against this sort of damage.

It sets the precedence that you can take saves at all against damage from sources that are not glancing or penetrating hits.

Since cover save is just a save that applies in the shooting phase, it still follows all mechanics of a save and is called a save.

Invulnerable save isn't the same as a cover save. Just because they are both saves doesn't mean they are applied the same way -- you still have to meet the criteria of being allowed to take such a save (in this case, a vehicle has to suffer a glancing or penetrating hit to be able to take a cover save). So the only precedence (and even that is debatable) it gives is the possibility that an invulnerable save can be taken.

By your logic, I could pop smoke, and take a cover save against a failed dangerous terrain test if it happens while moving flat out.

Either way, this has been argued at length in YMDC -- you should head over there to voice your stance/argument.

Back OT:

Again, Sternguard are very valuable when building them into a list that supports the role they are playing. A podding unit of them with a couple Combis can really swing the game in a different direction -- use a combat squad to pop a transport, then the other squad shoots whatever is inside.

This is the same tactic that was used in 5th, and it's still just as strong as ever. The new codex, just simply added some more options and flexibility that make sternguard less auto-include ( Hello LoTD!!!! )

 Nevelon wrote:


Melta dreads and/or ironclads are another drop pod favorite.

Have tried out a dual heavy flamer dreadnought, made my Tau opponent want to cry!

 NickTheButcher wrote:
Again, Sternguard are very valuable when building them into a list that supports the role they are playing. A podding unit of them with a couple Combis can really swing the game in a different direction -- use a combat squad to pop a transport, then the other squad shoots whatever is inside.

I never thought of that, and I have never seen it used that way... dropping two combat squads, having one melta the transport and the other gun down the passengers sounds totally awesome to me.

Too bad it's a lot more expensive to do that now

Super Newb wrote:
Too bad it's a lot more expensive to do that now

Sure, if you go 5x c-melta, 5x c-plasma it's more expensive, but you can probably get a lot of milage with less firepower.

3x melta should crack open a tank. It's not 5 shots, but I have faith that it will do the job. Just use the special ammo on the passengers, or toss a HF or two on the squad. The points should end up less then it was before. While not the alpha strike it was before, I think it's still hard enough to work. Now that the price of combi weapons is not the gimme 5 points, we need to think harder about handing them out to the whole squad. How many do you need to get the job done? While overkill is nice, at what cost?

But lascannons got a lot cheaper. Crack the transport with lascannons from a dev squad and then use the special ammo on the passengers.

The real value of Sternguard is that they slay MCs through weight of wounds.

Also dont forget you can just take the two regular special weapons(that is my prefered option)

Since we can get combi weapon/special weapon in the regular 5 man squads for the same price it does not make as much sense to make the sternguard take it and give up their special ammo.

A couple notable recently added MCs make hellfire rounds even more important/useful. I need to do a headcount on lascannoni... sounds like a good ideas.

Lascannons are all kinds of win now. They were before, but now they are reasonably priced. All the MLs can go in the garbage can for sure. If MLs had flakk for free, then I'd have to debate.

Martel732 wrote:
Lascannons are all kinds of win now. They were before, but now they are reasonably priced. All the MLs can go in the garbage can for sure. If MLs had flakk for free, then I'd have to debate.

I agree, the las canon makes all the other options hard to even consider to be honest. My second choice is actually the multimelta, half the ML range but still way more reliable at its role.

The plasma cannon is still decent massed up, but I just like being able to cripple AV 13 at 48". And it looks good vs iron armed MCs. Some lascannon fire plus some sternguard poison and that tervigon is toast!

I think Sternguard still have a place. There's a lot of flexibility in Special Issue Ammo. They're not as good as 5 special weapon Command Squads are at dealing with the one type of target you kit them to fight, but having the option to switch ammo types and use them against multiple different targets gives you the tactical flexibility to send them at different targets more effectively. Ignoring cover is boss. Rapid-fire AP3 weapons are really useful. Wounding on 2s can hurt high-toughness targets without great saves. And 30" (15" rapid) AP4 bolters have a lot of use against a ton of different targets now. When you're selecting a unit with the sole purpose of wrecking a single unit type, LotD and Command Squads are better choices a lot of the time. But, if you want a unit that can do several different things well from one game to the next, Sternguard are still super-flexible unit choices. And if you outfit them with Combi-Weapons, they can still do the alpha-strikes against the targets you kitted them to beat just like the other suicide units can, but they have the added value of being useful against a whole range of targets thereafter. Plus, Pedro can make them scoring, for what that's worth.

Just my $0.02.

..........

Still wish these guys got counterattack.

Martel732 wrote:
But lascannons got a lot cheaper. Crack the transport with lascannons from a dev squad and then use the special ammo on the passengers.

The real value of Sternguard is that they slay MCs through weight of wounds.

Hmm, now we're talking! I like this plan a lot better than the (unfortunately now more expensive) combi-weapon bomb. I wonder if my poor SWs are going to end up with expensive weapons when their new codex comes out. :(

Special ammo also forces 4+ infantry to huddle in cover, tears up cover specialists like Eldar rangers, and in a pinch can gun down 3+ armor. I'm looking at Eldar and Sisters for the last function. T3 with 3+ armor HATES the special ammo.

So, yeah, Sternguard are in some ways MORE boss because now people won't be tempted to suicide them, which never worked against my BA anyway.