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.

Dandelion wrote:
I'd say that certain things could use tweaking up in price (HWT are also a bit cheap), but things like sentinels and chimera really should go down (or just get better).

Said it before, saying it again:

I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

Every transport in the game that isn't a wave serpant/ raider/ or venom / or starweaver should get a hefty price cut.

You might notice...these are all eldar. All but 1 is open topped. The other one does mortal wounds and reduces all damage by 1 making it about as durable as a repulsor which is almost 3x more expensive.

Thunderhawks do not need a price cut. Neither does the space wolf flying coffin.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Every transport in the game that isn't a wave serpant/ raider/ or venom / or starweaver should get a hefty price cut.

You might notice...these are all eldar. All but 1 is open topped. The other one does mortal wounds and reduces all damage by 1 making it about as durable as a repulsor which is almost 3x more expensive.

The problem is IMO transports are extreme hard to balance, a Rhino is 72pts a Venom is 65pts, a venom has less wounds, less armor (but 5++) less toughness (by 2) and 4 poison shots (A SB is better IMO), that can only carry 5 guys (squads are in size of 5 so no characters with troops), its main buffs are Fly and -1 to hit

When you look at that way, a Venom is +4 buffs (Fly, Open top, 5++, more movement) but the Rhino is +4 (Wounds, toughness, armor, capacity)
* So comparing the 2, they have equal buffs on each other (to GW eyes, IMO Fly should be more costly)


The Rhino should be 60pts (base) if you want to try and balance it with the Venom (tho i can see Venoms going up 5pts soon).

The problem then comes into play, if they are too cheap then you just spam 10 Rhinos and deny objectives for the opponent, tho i would rather see 4-5 Rhinos on the table than 0

That's pretty good analysis. Yeah it seems like transports are difficult to balance.

The humble Chimera is a base 93pt transport, I'd rather it have no damn guns on it for as bad as it is as firing it's weapons when it moves. I still take 3 but I'd certainly be better off with equal number of points in more infantry.

Interestingly, it's also worth noting that the Null-Maiden Rhino from GW is only 60 pts (62, I think with SB, but that's not mandatory), for the Sisters of Silence.

This tells me that at least one of these 3 things is true:
1) GW typo'd and it should be 70 points (wrong, I think).
2) GW recognizes the Rhino isn't worth 70, but hasn't done anything for factions not SoS (also wrong).
3) GW recognizes that what a transport is transporting affects its cost (also wrong, in my opinion, as a Rhino can hold anything from a scout squad (worse than SOS I'd argue) to a Sternguard Squad (considerably better than SOS))

What're the thoughts on that?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Every transport in the game that isn't a wave serpant/ raider/ or venom / or starweaver should get a hefty price cut.

You might notice...these are all eldar. All but 1 is open topped. The other one does mortal wounds and reduces all damage by 1 making it about as durable as a repulsor which is almost 3x more expensive.

The problem is IMO transports are extreme hard to balance, a Rhino is 72pts a Venom is 65pts, a venom has less wounds, less armor (but 5++) less toughness (by 2) and 4 poison shots (A SB is better IMO), that can only carry 5 guys (squads are in size of 5 so no characters with troops), its main buffs are Fly and -1 to hit

When you look at that way, a Venom is +4 buffs (Fly, Open top, 5++, more movement) but the Rhino is +4 (Wounds, toughness, armor, capacity)
* So comparing the 2, they have equal buffs on each other (to GW eyes, IMO Fly should be more costly)


The Rhino should be 60pts (base) if you want to try and balance it with the Venom (tho i can see Venoms going up 5pts soon).

The problem then comes into play, if they are too cheap then you just spam 10 Rhinos and deny objectives for the opponent, tho i would rather see 4-5 Rhinos on the table than 0

You forgot that the Passengers can fire from their vehicle. That's why with my Deathwatch I'd take Venoms or Raiders in a heartbeat. They have the speed and ability to not hamper my offensive ability, which is ALREADY an issue for Marine armies in the first place. You give Kabalites a Rhino and you don't care because they're cheap enough that the offense isn't lost. Too bad they're not bad offensively for the price either!

 Marmatag wrote:
Thunderhawks do not need a price cut. Neither does the space wolf flying coffin.

The space wolf flyer is OP. It just gets more guns for the same price as a raven. I assume it will go up in the codex.

Never seen a thunderhawk once. I've looked at it's stats a few times. Thought it sucked. I was mostly referring to codex entires anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Every transport in the game that isn't a wave serpant/ raider/ or venom / or starweaver should get a hefty price cut.

You might notice...these are all eldar. All but 1 is open topped. The other one does mortal wounds and reduces all damage by 1 making it about as durable as a repulsor which is almost 3x more expensive.

The problem is IMO transports are extreme hard to balance, a Rhino is 72pts a Venom is 65pts, a venom has less wounds, less armor (but 5++) less toughness (by 2) and 4 poison shots (A SB is better IMO), that can only carry 5 guys (squads are in size of 5 so no characters with troops), its main buffs are Fly and -1 to hit

When you look at that way, a Venom is +4 buffs (Fly, Open top, 5++, more movement) but the Rhino is +4 (Wounds, toughness, armor, capacity)
* So comparing the 2, they have equal buffs on each other (to GW eyes, IMO Fly should be more costly)


The Rhino should be 60pts (base) if you want to try and balance it with the Venom (tho i can see Venoms going up 5pts soon).

The problem then comes into play, if they are too cheap then you just spam 10 Rhinos and deny objectives for the opponent, tho i would rather see 4-5 Rhinos on the table than 0

Venom has stats that actually matter where a rhino does nothing. Fly keyword for a vehicle is amazing. Moving 16 inches is also amazing if your job is to move units around. Open topped is amazing.

What is the Value of a metal box that transports units that does nothing deep striking a unit couldn't do better? It's worth about 35-40 points IMO. Venom is worth roughly 75.

Venoms are fantastic. Open topped is a huge, huge deal.

The point was each has difference strengths, the rhino has almost twice as many wounds, better save, better capacity, the venoms is fasters, has fly, cheaper, but also has its weakness, due to the nature of the venom its used to house the cheapest Aeldari troops only b.c it can be spammd.

Compare it to a Raider then (same wounds, but 2T less), you dont see Raider spam... and they have fly, better movement, 10 capacity, a better gun. Venoms are only spammed b.c how cheap they are (and they are going up in points soon so that wont be a problem anymore).

So a Raider is better than a rhino, then why isnt that spammed? The kabals can have better shots, re-rolls etc.. so the firepower is there for the Open-top abilities.

This is why i was giving examples as to why Transports are hard to balance.


PS: Venoms are spammed not just b.c they are cheap and kabals are cheap, but b.c its pointless to take 10mans and Ravagers/RWJF's will always be a better platform for Heavy Weapons. Even when Venoms go up 5pts, they still will be spammed, mostly b.c Kabals are not good, and taking 10mans doesnt make them better. Venom spam is partly b.c the troops dont have any good buffs for being in 10mans, another SC wont do anything and a DL on a moving guy means -1 to hit, so thats points and they now have LD problems. Most DE fire power doesnt come from Kabals, finally Kabals+Venoms are DE's best/cheapest anti infanty, when players are taking 100-200 models with 5/6+ saves, you need lots of shots.


And this is why Venoms wasnt played in the Index, b.c they were to much, Venoms so far are either to cheap or to costly, its VERY hard to get them balanced, 4/10 poison shots on the venoms isnt going anything much honestly, they on average with 1 SC vs IG kills 2 per turn, for 10pts more and the 5 kabals in Rapid fire range you only kill 4-5 guardsman (thats within 12" of the unit) on average you only kill 2-3 a turn for 95pts, thats 30pts per kill....

If you think Rhinos don't have stats that matter, you've never been charged by one after it delivered. Or tried to prevent the unit from being delivered. It *does* have stats that matter. It just pays too much for those stats.

The costing seems to be a casualty of a la carte. The Rhino and the Pred are the same chasis. The big difference is the guns on it. Cost the chasis appropriate for what a Rhino should be, and Preds/Razorbacks are way undercosted. Cost the chasis for what a Pred should be and Rhinos are far too expensive.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

No, we actually have a unit called Heavy Weapon Squads. That's where those weapons should be. The whole concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited.

Lol why the hell shouldn't mortars be in infantry squads?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

No, we actually have a unit called Heavy Weapon Squads. That's where those weapons should be. The whole concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited.

So Tac Marimes shouldnt get ML or other heavy weapons b.c of Dev squads? and shouldnt get melee weapons b.c Assault squads? ANd should have plasma or melta b.c Vet squads?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

No, we actually have a unit called Heavy Weapon Squads. That's where those weapons should be. The whole concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited.

So Tac Marimes shouldnt get ML or other heavy weapons b.c of Dev squads? and shouldnt get melee weapons b.c Assault squads? ANd should have plasma or melta b.c Vet squads?

You missed the part of "the concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited"?

Infantry Squads are not the same thing as the old Infantry Platoons. Platoons(A single Troops choice) had Platoon Command Squads(now two separate units, Platoon Commander as an Elite and Command Squad as Elite) Infantry Squads(Troops now), Conscript Squads(Troops now), Special Weapon Squads(Elites now), and Heavy Weapon Squads(Heavy Support now) all as options within the Platoon.

Guard really should not have been such an early release within 8th. They should have taken their time revising the army's mechanics before releasing it. A complete revamp to the basic Infantry Squad would be even better, with access to more Special Weapons and the addition of some pseudo-Heavy Weapons that one Guardsman could have. Things like a Heavy Stubber, the 'Hellshot' sniper rifle mentioned in Redemption Corps--stuff that one guy could carry around and operate with no issue.

Move the current Heavy Weapons to just the Heavy Weapon Squads, give them rules where if they are in cover or near an objective they can boost their ROF and saves and it makes the delineation between an Infantry Squad and a HWS much more interesting.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

No, we actually have a unit called Heavy Weapon Squads. That's where those weapons should be. The whole concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited.

So Tac Marimes shouldnt get ML or other heavy weapons b.c of Dev squads? and shouldnt get melee weapons b.c Assault squads? ANd should have plasma or melta b.c Vet squads?

You missed the part of "the concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited"?

Infantry Squads are not the same thing as the old Infantry Platoons. Platoons(A single Troops choice) had Platoon Command Squads(now two separate units, Platoon Commander as an Elite and Command Squad as Elite) Infantry Squads(Troops now), Conscript Squads(Troops now), Special Weapon Squads(Elites now), and Heavy Weapon Squads(Heavy Support now) all as options within the Platoon.

Guard really should not have been such an early release within 8th. They should have taken their time revising the army's mechanics before releasing it. A complete revamp to the basic Infantry Squad would be even better, with access to more Special Weapons and the addition of some pseudo-Heavy Weapons that one Guardsman could have. Things like a Heavy Stubber, the 'Hellshot' sniper rifle mentioned in Redemption Corps--stuff that one guy could carry around and operate with no issue.

Move the current Heavy Weapons to just the Heavy Weapon Squads, give them rules where if they are in cover or near an objective they can boost their ROF and saves and it makes the delineation between an Infantry Squad and a HWS much more interesting.

You miss the point of tac vs specialist, having 1 heavy weapon per 10 isnt taking away from 5mans with 4-5 weapons. There just isnt a need for specialist when you can just take 100 4ppm guys and have Smash Captain and Knights as allies.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

No, we actually have a unit called Heavy Weapon Squads. That's where those weapons should be. The whole concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited.

So Tac Marimes shouldnt get ML or other heavy weapons b.c of Dev squads? and shouldnt get melee weapons b.c Assault squads? ANd should have plasma or melta b.c Vet squads?

You missed the part of "the concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited"?

Infantry Squads are not the same thing as the old Infantry Platoons. Platoons(A single Troops choice) had Platoon Command Squads(now two separate units, Platoon Commander as an Elite and Command Squad as Elite) Infantry Squads(Troops now), Conscript Squads(Troops now), Special Weapon Squads(Elites now), and Heavy Weapon Squads(Heavy Support now) all as options within the Platoon.

Guard really should not have been such an early release within 8th. They should have taken their time revising the army's mechanics before releasing it. A complete revamp to the basic Infantry Squad would be even better, with access to more Special Weapons and the addition of some pseudo-Heavy Weapons that one Guardsman could have. Things like a Heavy Stubber, the 'Hellshot' sniper rifle mentioned in Redemption Corps--stuff that one guy could carry around and operate with no issue.

Move the current Heavy Weapons to just the Heavy Weapon Squads, give them rules where if they are in cover or near an objective they can boost their ROF and saves and it makes the delineation between an Infantry Squad and a HWS much more interesting.

You miss the point of tac vs specialist, having 1 heavy weapon per 10 isnt taking away from 5mans with 4-5 weapons. There just isnt a need for specialist when you can just take 100 4ppm guys and have Smash Captain and Knights as allies.

Just so we're clear:
There is nothing wrong with limiting certain weapons to the dedicated Heavy Weapon Squads. You might not like it, but given all the griping we get sent our way about mortars in Infantry Squads--I'd rather the damn things be limited to HWSes and we can be limit those nonsensical complaints.

Like I've said several times: I'd rather Guard just have been redesigned to be more in line with Skitarii. It's not like Skitarii are their own book anymore.

I have no problem with mortars going in infantry squads. I have an issue with the cost of the freaking mortar.

It is especially obnoxious in heavy weapon squads. Filling brigade slots way too cheap and get 3d6 str 4 48" range ignore LOS....yeah....busted. That's the firepower of a tactical squad for about half the cost with essentially 4x the range whilst being immune to incoming fire if there is a reasonable terrain feature. Like...why are we even having this discussion. They should be 20 points in a heavy weapon squad minimum. It should be an 8-10 point upgrade to an infantry squad.

Lol at 20pts for a BS4+ model to fire a souped up boltgun. Why are you so concerned about guard filling out a brigade for "too cheap?" The guard Stratagems are lackluster AF.

Lol at Mortar being a souped up boltgun

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Lol at 20pts for a BS4+ model to fire a souped up boltgun. Why are you so concerned about guard filling out a brigade for "too cheap?" The guard Stratagems are lackluster AF.

I think soup and CP farm are the obvious answers here. If those issues were fixed then the only real problem is no other infantry are as durable as guardsmen for the points. Their damage isn't really an issue.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I have no problem with mortars going in infantry squads. I have an issue with the cost of the freaking mortar.

It is especially obnoxious in heavy weapon squads. Filling brigade slots way too cheap and get 3d6 str 4 48" range ignore LOS....yeah....busted. That's the firepower of a tactical squad for about half the cost with essentially 4x the range whilst being immune to incoming fire if there is a reasonable terrain feature. Like...why are we even having this discussion. They should be 20 points in a heavy weapon squad minimum. It should be an 8-10 point upgrade to an infantry squad.

So first it's too annoying in Infantry Squads, now it's more annoying in a Heavy Weapon Squad(which can't take Vox-Casters, meaning the Officer has to be in shouting range)?

Make up your mind.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Lol at 20pts for a BS4+ model to fire a souped up boltgun. Why are you so concerned about guard filling out a brigade for "too cheap?" The guard Stratagems are lackluster AF.

Well, it is very souped up to be fair:
a single mortar outputs 1.75 S4 hits up to 48".
A tactical marine outputs .66 S4 hits up to 24", or 1.33 hits up to 12".

And durability wise, the HWT does have 2W.
- 4.5 S4 hits to kill a HWT
- 6 S4 hits to kill a tact marine

If it were up to me though, I'd bump HWT to 8 pts base (assuming 5pt infantry), then bump the mortar to 7-8 points (15-16 pts total). For comparison a Tau SMS turret costs 15 points for 1W 4+Sv and 4 S5 shots instead of D6 S4 shots and dies if the squad moves.

The guard stratagems are ok I've found, at least compared to Tau.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I have no problem with mortars going in infantry squads. I have an issue with the cost of the freaking mortar.

It is especially obnoxious in heavy weapon squads. Filling brigade slots way too cheap and get 3d6 str 4 48" range ignore LOS....yeah....busted. That's the firepower of a tactical squad for about half the cost with essentially 4x the range whilst being immune to incoming fire if there is a reasonable terrain feature. Like...why are we even having this discussion. They should be 20 points in a heavy weapon squad minimum. It should be an 8-10 point upgrade to an infantry squad.

So first it's too annoying in Infantry Squads, now it's more annoying in a Heavy Weapon Squad(which can't take Vox-Casters, meaning the Officer has to be in shouting range)?

Make up your mind.

I'm pretty sure he's just annoyed at the mortar wherever it is.

Dandelion wrote:

If it were up to me though, I'd bump HWT to 8 pts base (assuming 5pt infantry), then bump the mortar to 7-8 points (15-16 pts total). For comparison a Tau SMS turret costs 15 points for 1W 4+Sv and 4 S5 shots instead of D6 S4 shots and dies if the squad moves.

I'm cool with HWTs getting a points bump if they get access(paid or base) to a Vox-Caster or something that allows for them to get a bit tougher morale wise while in cover or stationary.

Also worth mentioning that a Tau SMS turret is ignored for morale purposes--which is a kinda big deal.

The guard stratagems are ok I've found, at least compared to Tau.

Tau has some okay ones, but the major issue tends to be people don't play the way the devs want Tau to play.

It doesn't help that Tau and Guard are literally the same army - T3, gunline armies.

Both aren't built for melee, though they have auxiliary melee options they can bring in.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Oh right. I discounted the Hotshot price but perhaps they could be 8ppm, so +1 point for better weapon options and more size flexibility (5-10), +2 pts for BS (following the Veteran model) and +1 pt for save?

Slow down there mate! That's not how points work. Skirarii rangers are just better versions of your proposed unit and they're at 7pts. (but they should be 8pts tbh) Veterans also pay WAY too much for their BS, compared to infantry (yet another reason for 5 pt guard)
Anyway max for these grenadiers is 7pts, and that's assuming 5pt guard and 8pt Rangers. (also, scions can be 7 pt models that pay 1 pt for hot shot lasguns and 2(or more) points for grav chutes)

Durability wise (5 pt guard):
18 S4 hits:
- kills 8 Infantry (40 pts)
- kills 6 Grenadiers (42 pts)

Shooting wise:
- 6 Infantry to kill 1 GEQ (30 pts)
- 4.5 Grenadiers to kill 1 GEQ (31.5 pts)

And since they're taking special weapons, they lose more points per model when decked out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fe40k wrote:
It doesn't help that Tau and Guard are literally the same army - T3, gunline armies.

Both aren't built for melee, though they have auxiliary melee options they can bring in.

I want Krorgyns now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

If it were up to me though, I'd bump HWT to 8 pts base (assuming 5pt infantry), then bump the mortar to 7-8 points (15-16 pts total). For comparison a Tau SMS turret costs 15 points for 1W 4+Sv and 4 S5 shots instead of D6 S4 shots and dies if the squad moves.

I'm cool with HWTs getting a points bump if they get access(paid or base) to a Vox-Caster or something that allows for them to get a bit tougher morale wise while in cover or stationary.

Also worth mentioning that a Tau SMS turret is ignored for morale purposes--which is a kinda big deal.

The guard stratagems are ok I've found, at least compared to Tau.

Tau has some okay ones, but the major issue tends to be people don't play the way the devs want Tau to play.

Vox caster would be fine. It also just makes sense, like why would you not be in contact with your weapons teams? You know what this means? New kits! (maybe one day)

As for the turret, not moving is also a pretty big deal. Not that I'm against it, but just pointing out that there is a drawback when compared to mortars.

Guard Strats are bad now? That's cray talk.

Defensive gunners, take cover, crush them!, grenadiers, vengeance for cadia, ambush & overlapping fields of fire are all solid.

 grouchoben wrote:
Guard Strats are bad now? That's cray talk.

Defensive gunners, take cover, crush them!, grenadiers, vengeance for cadia, ambush & overlapping fields of fire are all solid.

Two of those are regiment specific. The others are decent, but situational. For example, vengeance for cadia is absolutely useless unless you are fighting a chaos army. Grenadiers actually makes your guardsmen worse than FRFSRF.

None of them really makes me say "wow".

 Kanluwen wrote:
Also worth mentioning that a Tau SMS turret is ignored for morale purposes--which is a kinda big deal.

Not really, there are no orders or stratagems which target single squads so smaller teams that care less about morale are common. And while the turret doesn't count against morale it is basically the squads 'special weapon' at the cost of just over two firewarriors but at half the durability you'd be pressed to have it tank incoming shots first where this advantage comes into play. Not saying turrets don't have a place but using them to tank incoming fire is probably not it; by the time wounds reach your 'special weapon' the losses due to morale probably won't matter.