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.

Ignoring Chapter Tactics and assuming a TAC army, which adds more value?
To me it really comes down to interceptor vs saving points and not needing a camping squad.

There are a few other issues as well:

1. The SM AA tanks use up valuable HS slots, which most players like to use for their Centurion Devs and Thunderfire Cannons (and occasionally Stormravens).

2. Skyfire without Interceptor means that the value of the tanks drops if the opponent lacks FMCs, flyers, or skimmers.

I'll admit I've been mostly against the AA tanks, but I've started warming up to the Stalker and I'd like to give it a try sometime.

"Not needing a camping squad" is a pretty negative way of phrasing it. A long-ranged squad threatening enemy armor or other heavy troops, sitting behind a ADL right next to an objective marker can be difficult to shift and might be a good way of securing an objective.

Tanks, however, suffer from 6th most of the time and a lot of newer armies excel at taking them out. Furthermore, a ADL does not free VP (First Blood) and does not attract fire albeit posing a considerable threat to the enemy (AA + anything your squad brings).

Last but not least, an ADL does not take up a regular army slot whereas AA tanks mostly take a Heavy slot.

Therefore, I would prefer choosing the ADL.

I didn't mean to spin the camping squad as that much of a negative, but I think it is fair to say you have to invest more points into the ADL to make itv function. Five marines and a heavy weapon turn your 100 point investment into nearly 200 points or more then enough points to run dual AA tanks

In general you shouldn't be buying a squad for the ADL, rather you should have some unit that already needs to stay back (sniper scouts, regular devastators, etc) and can take advantage of the cover.

nobody wrote:
In general you shouldn't be buying a squad for the ADL, rather you should have some unit that already needs to stay back (sniper scouts, regular devastators, etc) and can take advantage of the cover.

My assumption is that half of a Tac squad will be guarding it. Figure it is pretty easy to split off a Tac squad to babysit the quad gun and giving them a heavy weapon helps provide a little extra shooting.

That's why I assumed a squad and ADL is going to run around 200 points.

I see the argument that the ADL offers more to your army, with the cover save and all but being more expensive, it feels like it's less of an option to just drop into a list when need be. Maybe that's a mistake though.

The stalker is absolutely fantastic AA. It really starts to show it's stuff against FMC and forcing lots of grounding tests. If you are not a believer then you should see some of Reeces' stuff on it. It does work. 75 pts for everything it brings is a steal.

My favorite AA is usually a stormraven. I find that a flyer MM is invaluable but I usually lack ranged anti tank.

The problem with the quad gun and ADL is two fold.
1) the ADL suckers you into believing you are a long ranged firepower army. This belief lasts until you get into a firefight are >24" with AM, Necrons, Tau, or CWE and you get your face smashed. If you take an ADL you need to be very careful that you don't discard your biggest advantage; mobility and versatility.

2) The gun and squad are fragile. The 5 armies in the game where the flyers actually matter are CSM (heldrake), AM (Vendetta and Vulture), Necrons (Nightscythe), GK (AC/HB Stormraven), and SM (Stormraven and FW varients). Out of these options CSM and GK will wipe out almost any unit you want to hold the quad gun with unless you start putting 200+ pts into manning a single quad gun... Necrons, AM, and SM can all take out a 2 wound T7 3+ save w/ 4+ cover piece of artillery with their flyers or almost any of the normal shooting they bring. In fact if they don't kill it turn 1 you will celebrate.

The best unit to man a quad gun is an imperial fist ML/LC devastator centurions with split fire and tank hunters and a cheap 34 pts inquisitor used as a servo skull caddy. This unit negates most of the biggest failings mentioned above and is a unit that gains a lot from 4+/2+ cover saves. The gun itself though will always be fragile and so I would never consider an ADL + quad gun to be enough AA by itself. A bastion is better as AV14 buildings are a bit tougher but is still fragile.

 ansacs wrote:
The stalker is absolutely fantastic AA. It really starts to show it's stuff against FMC and forcing lots of grounding tests. If you are not a believer then you should see some of Reeces' stuff on it. It does work. 75 pts for everything it brings is a steal.

I really like the Stalker on paper, glad to see it's working for people as well in the real world.
People often knock the lack of interceptor, especially as it means snap shots on targets but how many armies out there aren't runny any Flyers, FMCs or Skimmers?

1) the ADL suckers you into believing you are a long ranged firepower army. This belief lasts until you get into a firefight are >24" with AM, Necrons, Tau, or CWE and you get your face smashed. If you take an ADL you need to be very careful that you don't discard your biggest advantage; mobility and versatility.

I can definitely see that issue, especially in an aggressive SM list. Sure IF can't function as a gunline but most other Chapters needs to get in close to maximize their damage.

I've tried the ADL with Quad Gun against my friends BA Stormraven/Talon combo several times. Not enough.

I started using the Icarus Lascannon and have gotten better results. Sometimes I man it with a Sniper Scout Squad to be cheap, snipe at 36", and the Sgt fires the cannon with his BS4, and they improve the ADL cover save. Still fold like tin foil against a dedicated attack, but if you're looking for a relatively decent chance at AA, it's passable. I've also been taking a Hunter lately (haven't bought my own Air Force yet) and ADL with Icarus LC and a Tactical Squad with Flakk Missiles.

In my experience, the Stalker and Hunter weapons suffer from being Str 7 - against a Raven, you need 5/6 to do anything, same as the Quad Gun. Maybe I have bad dice luck, but one game, the Stalker and the Quad Gun both spent two turns shooting at the Raven and only knocked off a hull point...

The Hunter has one excellent thing going for it. It has Armorbane without being Melta. So it bypasses Ceramic Shielding.


I think your best best is actually air-based AA fire. Take a flier with anti-armor loadout - if you can put Str 8 shots out, you're on the right path. TL-LC on a Talon or Raven should be amazing - Str 9 shots to get through AV 12 on 3/4, and AP 2 to help the damage roll.


YMMV of course. My regular opponent is BA, so dealing with AV 12 in the air has been a tough problem for me (playing Ultramarines).

So tough in fact, I'm building a Dark Eldar army with two Voidraven Bombers.

4 x Str 9 Void Lance for A-AA?

[George Tekai voice] Oh my...

 GeneralRetreat wrote:

I started using the Icarus Lascannon and have gotten better results. Sometimes I man it with a Sniper Scout Squad to be cheap, snipe at 36", and the Sgt fires the cannon with his BS4, and they improve the ADL cover save.

All of the math gives the Quad Gun the advantage vs the Icarus.
How is the Icarus performing better for you? Is it the ability to get a one shot kill vs slowly stripping HP?

Okay, if you are willing, let me ask about my poor Blood Angels, who have neither access to any of the new Space Marine AA tanks OR the Centurion squads that would otherwise eat up the HS slots.

For us the Quad gun is about all we can do, though I've put a Devastator squad behind the Aegis line as well.

Other thoughts on AA choices for my red guys? (Stormraven works, but it arrives so late given how I roll...)

I am thinking more an more of running some other Space Marines as allies for my BA, just to get access to some of these new units. Imperial Fists might be a good choice for either of these two AA choices, from a fluff standpoint anyway. Good defenders, with Bolter Drill or whatever making them better shooters, and a bright yellow AA tank would look pretty cool. I guess Iron hands would work too--durable as well.

Use Stormravens with an aegis line with commlink if you are really worried. You can put BA sniper scouts behind the line to call in the air cav. Just remember to not actually put anything in the Stormravens

Thanks Martel. The Sniper Scouts is a variant I have not tried there, so I will give that a go for sure.

Since all the air support is showing up out of reserves anyway, there should be no disadvantage with the Stormraven showing up that way, and the commlink will help as you said. And, yes, I hear you on the "dedicated" purpose--not for transport.

Assault elements that can't assault till turn 3 suck out loud most of the time.

I bought a whirlwind off some dude on ebay. Came with a couple of razorbacks and a dozen SMs. I noticed in the FW imperial Armor book a Hyperios whirlwind. Basically an AA whirlwind with interceptor/skyfire rockets.

It's an option.

Also, FW has Hyperios automated AA artillery. They are deep strikeable and have up to 3 units.

Oh, if you wanna leave a scout squad manning your ADLs quad gun. May I suggest SGT telion if you're running UM chapter tactics. Balistic skill 5

Yep, one shot one kill is the hope. Str 7 suffers against AV12, even with 4 shots. And, no AP boost on the damage roll if you do get a pen.

 GeneralRetreat wrote:
Yep, one shot one kill is the hope. Str 7 suffers against AV12, even with 4 shots. And, no AP boost on the damage roll if you do get a pen.

Seems like the Icarus would pair better with Hunters hoping for the one shot kill .
Averages are in favor of autocannons though so it's a riskier play style

 Sigvatr wrote:
"Not needing a camping squad" is a pretty negative way of phrasing it. A long-ranged squad threatening enemy armor or other heavy troops, sitting behind a ADL right next to an objective marker can be difficult to shift and might be a good way of securing an objective.

Tanks, however, suffer from 6th most of the time and a lot of newer armies excel at taking them out. Furthermore, a ADL does not free VP (First Blood) and does not attract fire albeit posing a considerable threat to the enemy (AA + anything your squad brings).

Last but not least, an ADL does not take up a regular army slot whereas AA tanks mostly take a Heavy slot.

Therefore, I would prefer choosing the ADL.

An AV12 tank that has no business being near the front line out of cover isn't too much of a liability for First Blood.

A squad camping the Quadgun isn't super durable as you might think either. There is a ton of ignores cover out there.

If you are running other vehicles, having more AV is nice. If you aren't you probably have guys to pick up the gun when the first squad gets fried.

150 for 2 that in pinch can shoot 4 targets, is cheaper adl fun squad. There is much better heavy options in allies. You only need 1 centurion if any

Mr. bigglesworth wrote:
150 for 2 that in pinch can shoot 4 targets, is cheaper adl fun squad. There is much better heavy options in allies. You only need 1 centurion if any

I personally find it difficult to plan a SM army without at least two TFCs but YMMV.

I agree tfcs are great, but I tend to get my power hitters from allies, tau, guard, or/and knights. Tfc, is extremely cost effective, I just prefer not mobility in my lists.

The simple answer is: If you have a free HS slot and you have a good amount of armor, go with the AA tanks. If not, then go with the ADL.

The long answer: The AA tanks have a huge advantage over the ADL/Quadgun, which is it can only be fired by you (barring special powers). If your enemy is close to the quadgun, then you cant fire it. If the squad by the quad gun gets wiped out, then you cant fire it. And if the squad is wiped out and your enemy is close to the quad gun, then it looks like you just payed 100 points for your enemy to have a quad gun. The quad gun is not mobile like the AA tanks, and while generally you shouldnt be moving the AA tank around a lot, there are quite a few instances where it is very helpful.

Other options: Running fliers allows you to have very survivable AA that can also target ground units, though they dont come in until after turn one and are more expensive than the AA tanks.

edited for clarity

I agree that flyers of your own is a strong counter, however SM flyers also make good tank busters. This means any time you can free them up from hunting flyers gives more time to strafe ground targets.

One hunter in reserve plus a quad gun is usually enough AA for vs most army lists. Hunter threatens any flier in the game and can buy you time if they fly off. Also, dont forget skyfire works for skimmers too, meaning you can fire at eldar tanks. 60" range means you can hit those serpents who think they are safe in the back who use their shields for firing. At worst, a BS1 S7 AP2 Armorbane shot has a chance of doing damage to non-flier non-skimmer tanks.

I would say ADL w quad is generally more useful, but the hunter is more effective for vs skimmers and fliers. The stalker is pretty bad all around.

That's funny, from what I've seen, I'd prefer the stalker.

Martel732 wrote:
That's funny, from what I've seen, I'd prefer the stalker.

Math-hammer firmly shows the Stalker has better average performance but I think people are less motivated by averages compared to potential. The Hunter is the gambler's choice.

 minigun762 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's funny, from what I've seen, I'd prefer the stalker.

Math-hammer firmly shows the Stalker has better average performance but I think people are less motivated by averages compared to potential. The Hunter is the gambler's choice.

The Hunter also looks much better, but that’s in the eye of the beholder.

I’m not a fan of glancing HPs off things, preferring clean kills. But when you consider that half the things in the air are winged monsters with wounds, the multiple hits from the Stalker start to look much better.

 Nevelon wrote:

 minigun762 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's funny, from what I've seen, I'd prefer the stalker.

Math-hammer firmly shows the Stalker has better average performance but I think people are less motivated by averages compared to potential. The Hunter is the gambler's choice.

The Hunter also looks much better, but that’s in the eye of the beholder.

I’m not a fan of glancing HPs off things, preferring clean kills. But when you consider that half the things in the air are winged monsters with wounds, the multiple hits from the Stalker start to look much better.

That's exactly why I like it. My BA usually don't care too much about actual fliers, but the MCs are just brutal.

RoF vs AP2.
Simple math says the Stalker will out perform the Hunter because it's RoF is more than 3x the Hunter's which makes up for the assumed 3+ armor save.

There aren't any common FMCs with 2+ is there?

 minigun762 wrote:
RoF vs AP2.
Simple math says the Stalker will out perform the Hunter because it's RoF is more than 3x the Hunter's which makes up for the assumed 3+ armor save.

There aren't any common FMCs with 2+ is there?

can the crimson slaughter take a daemon prince with daemon heart(sounds kinda loony, but it would be a FMC with a 2+) and ye gods if it was a DoT