Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 13:42:09
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Selym wrote:Bharring wrote:
Finally, another thing people often dismiss is their assault threat. Nobody will let most of their vehicles sit within assault range of even a naked tac squad. Because they can kill it. Same for almost all non- CC units in the game. Even many of the units Tacs outshoot. So, while this means that CC won't happen most of the time, it means the SM player sets the terms. Tremendous board control advantage.
This. So much. I can't count the number of times I've lost 200-300+ points to a tactical squad simply because I have no good melee defense.
Kill them before they get that close like every other Xeno list.
"Tacs are bad only because the game is broken."
But they're still bad. Quit tap dancing around the reality of the situation. And tacs have been bad for a long, long, LONG time.
"If small arms made a comeback - as unlikely as that seems - the strengths of the SM statline might be more apparent. "
No one is going to do that with things like Wraithknights and Riptides running around. And IK for sure, who are literally immune to small arms.
" it means the SM player sets the terms"
In practice, this doesn't happen, the SM just get shot to death from medium/long range.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/04 13:46:50
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 13:51:36
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
Martel732 wrote: Selym wrote:Bharring wrote:
Finally, another thing people often dismiss is their assault threat. Nobody will let most of their vehicles sit within assault range of even a naked tac squad. Because they can kill it. Same for almost all non- CC units in the game. Even many of the units Tacs outshoot. So, while this means that CC won't happen most of the time, it means the SM player sets the terms. Tremendous board control advantage.
This. So much. I can't count the number of times I've lost 200-300+ points to a tactical squad simply because I have no good melee defense.
Kill them before they get that close like every other Xeno list.
Easier said than done. To get a good defence going, I'll need another £300. And it would make an unfluffy/unfun list.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 14:02:22
Subject: Re:usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
TheNewBlood wrote:As someone who uses a lot of Aspect Warriors, I can tell you firsthand how useful a 3+ save is. T4 would be even better, as it means that most anti-infantry firepower wounds you on a 4+ instead of a 3+ or 2+. When under fire, a 3+ save is the best most infantry models can hope for.
If you judge most by volume in the rule books, sure. If you judge most by mostly what gets taken....
Don't Eldar get psuedo rending on their weapons? How often does that matter against orks compared to marines?
TheNewBlood wrote:
The problems lie in the power creep of the game. While AP3 or lower is still uncommon, every army has the means to make a mockery of even Space Marine armour. The other problem is sheer volume of fire; the easiest way to kill MEQ is to force them to make lots of saves. Combine this with undercosted means of delivering S6/7 fire, and whole armies can crumble. Camping cover is a good idea, but puts you on the same level as units without the glorious 3+. This is where things like Drop Pods and Rhinos (with the occasional Land Raider) come in to give the infantry some protection against mid-strength spam.
While land raiders help against mid strength spam, rhinos explode. Drop pods are nice for the suicide squad but aren't effective against many armies that plan for it and can counter punch hard. Remember, a rhino is less survivable then a chimera (though it does cost less, the squads with transports are comparable). Necrons and other armies have even better transports.
TheNewBlood wrote:
Tactical Marines a bad, but only in comparison to other units (Scouts, Scatbikers, Bikes, etc.) They have decent damage output against infantry, and can take a variety of upgrades to deal with any other threat. Krak Grenades mean they can hurt vehicles and MC's, while pistol+ CCW gives them a solid amount of attacks on the charge. Combine this with Combat Squads and ATSKNF, and you have units that will stick around on the board a long time.
You can't say they are bad when compared to other troop units (2 of the 3 you listed from the same dex!) and then say they are decent.
Their output is terrible. That's the problem. If they had more special weapons or bolters were better you'd see them used more.
TheNewBlood wrote:
Most of the complaints about marine survivability come from MEQ players. If they played other armies, I can guarantee that they would quickly get some perspective about the merits of T4 3+ infantry. That and the importance of always staying in cover.
I do play other armies, including orks and nids. I still think that MEQ is less survivable point per point.
Marines staying in cover makes them nearly the equivalent to any other troop choice in the game (and against str 6+, exactly equivalent) while costing 1.5-3x more points. If marines had +1 cover save it would be different, but they don't.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 14:03:36
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
"Easier said than done. To get a good defence going, I'll need another £300. And it would make an unfluffy/unfun list."
I guess it depends on what you find fun. At this point, winning a couple games with BA would be novel. It's gotten to the point where I've quit trying to assault because my marines WILL die before they get to that range. And the BA first turn assault formation is just bad.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/04 14:05:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 14:24:46
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Bharring wrote:The game would certainly be a lot better if someone took the nerfhammer to the top, say, 10% of the game.
Anyone remember when the Psyfleman Dreadnought was the best long-range anti-tank in the game?
It seems so long ago.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 14:25:34
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
I (barely) remember the days when Genestealers were cheese.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 14:39:12
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
vipoid wrote:Bharring wrote:The game would certainly be a lot better if someone took the nerfhammer to the top, say, 10% of the game.
Anyone remember when the Psyfleman Dreadnought was the best long-range anti-tank in the game?
It seems so long ago.
Bah, that was like yesterday.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 15:00:30
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Selym wrote:I (barely) remember the days when Genestealers were cheese.
I remember when the thing everyone was whining about was Imperial Guard Leafblower armies.
|
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 15:01:34
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
Melissia wrote: Selym wrote:I (barely) remember the days when Genestealers were cheese.
I remember when the thing everyone was whining about was Imperial Guard Leafblower armies.
I missed out on that :C
Here's to hoping that power creep brings it back!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 15:05:25
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Moscow, Russia
|
Mechanicus do have a S6 AP5 Haywire 36" Rapid Fire gun on a basic troop, but that basic troop costs 50 points and has BS3 (which admittedly it can raise for one turn).
Heavy Arc Rifles are not good at everything. They are mediocre against everything against vehicles.
Equivalent points of bolter marines are superior against MEQ than an Arc Rifle Breacher is within 24", and a lot more durable.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 15:26:16
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Alcibiades wrote:Mechanicus do have a S6 AP5 Haywire 36" Rapid Fire gun on a basic troop, but that basic troop costs 50 points and has BS3 (which admittedly it can raise for one turn).
Just as an idea, 2 Scourges with Haywire Blasters are 52pts.
They're a FA choice, only 4 of them can have haywire at all, their weapons are 24" S4 AP4 Assault 1, and they're T3 with 4+ saves.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 16:30:27
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Moscow, Russia
|
vipoid wrote:Alcibiades wrote:Mechanicus do have a S6 AP5 Haywire 36" Rapid Fire gun on a basic troop, but that basic troop costs 50 points and has BS3 (which admittedly it can raise for one turn).
Just as an idea, 2 Scourges with Haywire Blasters are 52pts.
They're a FA choice, only 4 of them can have haywire at all, their weapons are 24" S4 AP4 Assault 1, and they're T3 with 4+ saves.
And they are jump troops that can deep strike and have BS4, plus a small inv save and likely FNP. Breachers also have a 4+ save (EDIT: whoops, that's Destroyers.) And 2 wounds -- just like the two scourges!
A breacher will take 1/2 x 5/6 = 5/12 x 2 = 5/6 HPs off a vehicle; the Scourges will take 2/3 x 5/6 = 5/9 x 2 = 1 1/9.
But this is another issue. We were not discussing scourges vs. breachers, but about a wespon being "good against everything." Heavy arc rifles are not good against everything. They are good against vehicles. Against anything else they are mediocre. Statistically they do the same damage to T6 3+ as a radium carbine does.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/04 17:31:16
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 16:53:57
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
Little Rock, Arkansas
|
Unit1126PLL wrote: Carnage43 wrote:Bharring wrote:If you play IG using SM models and rules, of course they fail.
Wounds trumping saves? What's good these days?
Necron Wraiths - 3++ T5 W2, resurrection protocols.
TWC - 2+/3++ T5 W2
Wraithknight - 3+/5+++ T8 W6
Skyhammer - 3+ Toughness is irrelevant, Alpha strike unit
Cents - 2+ T5 W2 and invisibility very often.
IKs - 4++ AV13/12
Wind riders - 3+/4+ Staying power is unnecessary. It's all about the firepower here. 36" range is their armor.
Shadow field WPP Archon w/Scytheguard - 2++/3+ Alpha strike, T6
So IKs aren't good saves, but almost everything else is.
The save is a toughness multiplier on top of otherwise VERY tough models....and only the invul saves really matter. If you are tough enough that it makes basic weapons need a 5 or 6 to wound, the save is just insult to injury, and makes you shift to a more efficient weapon class for dealing with the threat.
Soooo you're saying if you took their saves away or made them a 6+ these units would still be the best in the game?
They would still be good because their saves aren't the selling point of the units in question. The save is just frosting on their cake. They would have less resilience if you dropped their saves yes, but they would still be fairly good at their jobs. The wraiths and twc would be the heaviest hit by removing their armor, because they need to cross the table before doing damage. Most of the other units listed show up and accomplish their job immediately without taking enemy fire.
|
20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 17:13:09
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Actually I'm fairly certain that if I could wound those units relatively easily with heavy bolters and heavy flamers because 4+ save, I'd not have much problem facing them. All three of my armies can output vastly more AP4 firepower than AP3 or better.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/04 17:14:22
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 17:22:46
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Melissia wrote:Actually I'm fairly certain that if I could wound those units relatively easily with heavy bolters and heavy flamers because 4+ save, I'd not have much problem facing them. All three of my armies can output vastly more AP4 firepower than AP3 or better.
Really? I mean, I know sisters can take a lot of Heavy Flamers but I can't think of many instances where I see AP 4. Its usually 5+ or 3-. It could be I don't look at AP4 (or 5+ tbh) as anything special so I'm getting confirmation bias, but I like to think I'd notice a vast difference.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 17:28:55
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Akiasura wrote: Melissia wrote:Actually I'm fairly certain that if I could wound those units relatively easily with heavy bolters and heavy flamers because 4+ save, I'd not have much problem facing them. All three of my armies can output vastly more AP4 firepower than AP3 or better. Really? I mean, I know sisters can take a lot of Heavy Flamers but I can't think of many instances where I see AP4..
Not JUST heavy flamer,s but also heavy bolters. If more enemies were 4+ saves, I'd take a ton more heavy bolters, and take my enemies out at long range before having to worry about flamers to begin with. As it is they're not that useful because too many 3+ saves, so no one really thinks about them (heavy flamers are used more often because flamer template and ignores cover saves). But drop a lot of 3+ units to 4+ and suddenly heavy bolters rip them new arseholes regularly, and become far, FAR more worth it. And that's just the ones Sisters have. My IG can have even more AP4 firepower.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/04 17:29:44
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 17:30:49
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Most people don't realize when their weapons are AP4 it seems.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 17:35:46
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Moscow, Russia
|
A lot of armies have loads of 4+. Including the dreaded Necron Warriors and all of the feared Skitarii
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 17:47:09
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Consigned to the Grim Darkness
|
Alcibiades wrote:A lot of armies have loads of 4+. Including the dreaded Necron Warriors and all of the feared Skitarii
Irrelevant, as we're talking about 3+ saves, and I raised the point that if more armies that were 3+ had their saves lowered to 4+, AP4 weapons-- which are quite abundant-- would become a lot more used. So tell me. Would you not be more willing to appreciate the firepower of heavy bolters if marines couldn't take their armor saves against them?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/04 17:47:23
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 17:51:52
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
I appreciate Heavy Bolters anyway. Mmmm... Imperial Guard Tanks...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 18:23:26
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Alcibiades wrote:
And they are jump troops that can deep strike and have BS4, plus a small inv save and likely FNP. Breachers also have a 4+ save (EDIT: whoops, that's Destroyers.) And 2 wounds -- just like the two scourges!
Being jump infantry really only serves to compensate for their poor range. Yeah, they can move faster than destroyers, but they also have to be 12" closer to do anything.
With regard to wounds, there's a great deal of difference between 2 T3 wounds and 2 T5 wounds.
Alcibiades wrote:
A breacher will take 1/2 x 5/6 = 5/12 x 2 = 5/6 HPs off a vehicle; the Scourges will take 2/3 x 5/6 = 5/9 x 2 = 1 1/9.
So, the scourges are slightly better at stripping HPs. But, what about if the opponent has no vehicles (or they've all been destroyed). How do they fare then?
Also, don't forget that against AV10, the Destroyers are penetrating on 5s.
Alcibiades wrote:
But this is another issue. We were not discussing scourges vs. breachers, but about a wespon being "good against everything." Heavy arc rifles are not good against everything. They are good against vehicles. Against anything else they are mediocre. Statistically they do the same damage to T6 3+ as a radium carbine does.
But that's the thing - you're not comparing them to the competition.
As above, please compare their effectiveness against MEQ or T6 3+ to the single shot S4 AP4 haywire gun the scourges get. Because that was the entire point - in that weapons that were effective only against a very limited range of targets are now becoming much more useful against other targets.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 18:32:16
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Moscow, Russia
|
Sure.
One breacher with a Heavy Arc Rifle against MEQ, two scourges with haywayer blasters against MEQ,
Breacher is 1/2 x 5/6 x 1/3 = 5/36 x 2 = 5/18 = 0.28
Two scourges is 2/3 x 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/9 x 2 = 2/9 = 0.22
Scourges with haywire are almost identical against MEQ, range issues aside.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/04 18:32:35
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 19:10:17
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Huh, I'll admit that's a lot closer than I thought it would be.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 19:29:01
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Moscow, Russia
|
Dude
If heavy arc rifles are "good against everything," then so are haywire blasters, which are only marginally worse against MEQ.
They are NOT good against everything, they are mediocre against everything except vehicles. Against a carnifex it takes 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/12, 4 wounds, 48 SHOTS BY A HAR TO KILL ONE
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/04 19:31:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 19:31:39
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Melissia wrote:Alcibiades wrote:A lot of armies have loads of 4+. Including the dreaded Necron Warriors and all of the feared Skitarii
Irrelevant, as we're talking about 3+ saves, and I raised the point that if more armies that were 3+ had their saves lowered to 4+, AP4 weapons-- which are quite abundant-- would become a lot more used. So tell me. Would you not be more willing to appreciate the firepower of heavy bolters if marines couldn't take their armor saves against them?
Turn it around. Would Windriders still be amazeballs if they only had a 4+ save? The answer is yes.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 19:53:11
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Windriders would still be amazing but not nearly as durable at 4+ because much more weaponry would force jink. Hell even the pathetic GKs would hard counter a full windrider force. The fact that they would still be no brainer good is just a testament to how fukt up they are currently in terms of balance.
It always warms my heart when I see these marine saves are crap topics. Coming from many many chapters of marines to multiple xenos armies over the years its so apparent just what a crutch 3+ armour, ATSKNR and grenades are. Not to mention drop pods. Cost was really the equalizer but now thats mostly out the window along with breaking other rules like relentless in power armour or assault from reserves.
Fwiw though I lump eldar and crons into the same category since they are basically marines +1.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/04 19:53:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 19:58:50
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Melissia wrote:Akiasura wrote: Melissia wrote:Actually I'm fairly certain that if I could wound those units relatively easily with heavy bolters and heavy flamers because 4+ save, I'd not have much problem facing them. All three of my armies can output vastly more AP4 firepower than AP3 or better.
Really? I mean, I know sisters can take a lot of Heavy Flamers but I can't think of many instances where I see AP4..
Not JUST heavy flamer,s but also heavy bolters. If more enemies were 4+ saves, I'd take a ton more heavy bolters, and take my enemies out at long range before having to worry about flamers to begin with. As it is they're not that useful because too many 3+ saves, so no one really thinks about them (heavy flamers are used more often because flamer template and ignores cover saves). But drop a lot of 3+ units to 4+ and suddenly heavy bolters rip them new arseholes regularly, and become far, FAR more worth it.
And that's just the ones Sisters have. My IG can have even more AP4 firepower.
So...2 options? 2 doesn't seem vast, imo.
Heavy bolters put more shots down field, true, but it seems the best option for the more competitive armies out there involve an extremely high ap and just use ROF and high str. I don't see as much low ap spam in the xenos armies...its really more of an imperial thing. I wonder if Grav didn't work against tanks, would you still see it taken as much?
Honestly I don't know if heavy bolters would be worth it even then. Eldar and Necrons have 4+ saves and are the strongest armies in the game, yet nobody takes heavy bolters (Granted, their best units don't use 4+ saves....). HBs need another strength or a special rule to be worth it. Part of this is that if you have a 4+ save and are in cover, you only drop to a 5+ at worst. That's a difference, sure, but not as big as 2+ to 5+ or 3+ to 5+.
Edit:
@Bharring, I'm not sure about my non-imperial armies, since they don't get played as much, but in my imperial armies AP4 is pretty limited. Maybe...3 or 4 weapons? Most of them on not great platforms either.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/04 20:00:27
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 20:27:33
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
The real problem with the heavy bolter is that it doesn't melt vehicles like the scatterlaser. AP 4 certainly has its uses, but its not as valuable as glancing out AV 11/12 reliably.
"but not nearly as durable at 4+ because much more weaponry would force jink"
Maybe then they'd actually be remotely fair.
" ATSKNR and grenades are. Not to mention drop pods."
Of those, only drop pods really matter. The new paradigm for 7th ed power lists is to table.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/04 20:29:27
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 20:35:47
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Eastern Washington
|
A 3+ is definetly good, the problem for SMs is its welded to a above average body. Being above average is very points inefficient. Especially while a SM is carrying such a puny weapon. The humble bolter compared to top tier army weapons is such a fracking joke. Gaus, shuriken & pulse make a mockery of bolters.
Anywho....adding in to the mix Rend, fau-Rend, MC attacks & stomp from super heavy walkers & your looking at a enormous range of 1, 2, & 3+ ap weapons. All of these options and the many others are, point for point, way more efficient for an army than MEQ. Please remember that a scat bike or Iknight can be used to take on armor as well, while MEQ cant do much except thump guardsmen.
|
4,000 Word Bearers 1,500 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/04 21:38:21
Subject: usefulness of a 3+ save.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
@Aki - what Xenos, out of curiosity?
When I field ally 4+ bodies, it frequently goes like this:
Opponent - Ok, take X armor saves
Me - isn't that AP4?
opponent - Really?
*someone looks it up*
Me - removes models from table (or takes cover/invuln) Automatically Appended Next Post: Some SM AP4 weapons:
-Assault Cannon
-Autocannon
-Heavy Bolter
-Heavy Flamer
-Krak Grenades
-Power Maul
-Force Staff
And that's just the reasonably common stuff.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/04 21:43:37
|
|
 |
 |
|