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.

Old question for razorbacks i guess but with changes to weapons in 8th edition i thought i'd better clarify.


Razorbacks have the option of taking a lot of twin linked weapons, eg Lascannons, Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons, Heavy Flamers. These all now thankfully add shots to the weapons, not just rerolls to hit like they used to..

But they also have the option to take a Lascannon and twin linked plasma gun.

Now there is no longer any such thing as "weapon destroyed" (5th ed part of me groans remembering) so my question is........is Lascannon and T-l Plasma gun still a good combo?

And also can you fire each part of the weapon at different targets?

Each weapon can target a different unit, must be declared before any dice are rolled. Weapon Destroyed isn't a thing anymore, instead your BS degrades as you take damage.

For advice on what to take, use the 40K Tactics forum.

Indeed the Lascannon can target unit A and the Twin-Plasma can target unit B.
It's important to note, however, that "Twin" weapons are a single weapon, not 2 of a kind.
So the Twin Plasma can only be fired at 1 unit as it is a single weapon, not 2 Plasmas.

As for it being a good option, I'd say it's pretty "meh" considering the Lascannon wants to stay still and pop shots at range, while the Twin-Plas wants to get close for Rapid-fire range.
It's not as versatile because, unless you have a target already in 12", you are not getting the most out of either weapon.
You basically have to maximize your effectiveness of one weapon at the cost other's.

You're far better off just making this decision in the list building step by either going Twin-Las or Twin-Assault cannon.

-

I will consider Twin Las. I just remember T-L plasma and lascannon being good cause it meant even if you lost one gun you still kept the other funcional....meh goodybe old rules.

I'll try out the las and t-l plas first then try twin las.

Personally I like lascannon and twin-plasma even if it's not ideal in some circumstances. It was the original armament for the Razorback and is not terrible in 8th. With as fast as units are in this game, I don't think you'd struggle to find enemy units within 24" to pop off some plasma shots at.

Likewise, two or three Razorbacks equipped as such wouldn't be too awful either. You can always buy alternate turrets or weapon options - never glue your razorback turrets. Companies like Kromlech make every single variety of Razorback turret (and several which don't even have rules).

Why would you take a weapon option that can insta death your razerback on overcharged?

Keep in mind that due to Special Snowflake FAQ, Razorbacks with Plasma Guns are slain when they roll a 1 to hit with it even when not overcharged.

In short, don't take them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Keep in mind that due to Special Snowflake FAQ, Razorbacks with Plasma Guns are slain when they roll a 1 to hit with it even when not overcharged.

In short, don't take them.

No, no they are not. Quit with the nonsense, you’re just embarrassing yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Why would you take a weapon option that can insta death your razerback on overcharged?

Sheer retro cool factor. :-D

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Keep in mind that due to Special Snowflake FAQ, Razorbacks with Plasma Guns are slain when they roll a 1 to hit with it even when not overcharged.In short, don't take them.

No, no they are not. Quit with the nonsense, you’re just embarrassing yourself.

WARHAMMER 40,000 INDEX: IMPERIUM 1 Official Update Version 1.2 is explicit on the subject.

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

Does this ignore RaW? Yes, that's why it's a Special Snowflake FAQ. Doesn't change the fact that the FAQ exists.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Keep in mind that due to Special Snowflake FAQ, Razorbacks with Plasma Guns are slain when they roll a 1 to hit with it even when not overcharged.In short, don't take them.

No, no they are not. Quit with the nonsense, you’re just embarrassing yourself.

WARHAMMER 40,000 INDEX: IMPERIUM 1 Official Update Version 1.2 is explicit on the subject.

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

Does this ignore RaW? Yes, that's why it's a Special Snowflake FAQ. Doesn't change the fact that the FAQ exists.

Yawn. This again. Where I say “it means when overcharging” as it blatantly does, and you waffle on about RAW Til I Die because you believe it applies to all shots. Just spare me the pages of back and forth. .

Sigh. Why people even reply to that guy. He doesn't even himself play like he preaches.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Keep in mind that due to Special Snowflake FAQ, Razorbacks with Plasma Guns are slain when they roll a 1 to hit with it even when not overcharged.In short, don't take them.

No, no they are not. Quit with the nonsense, you’re just embarrassing yourself.

WARHAMMER 40,000 INDEX: IMPERIUM 1 Official Update Version 1.2 is explicit on the subject.

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

Does this ignore RaW? Yes, that's why it's a Special Snowflake FAQ. Doesn't change the fact that the FAQ exists.

Which is irrelevant for any 8th edition Codex that has a Razorback datasheet in it since the Index came out - the FAQ won't apply to the Codexes.

 doctortom wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Keep in mind that due to Special Snowflake FAQ, Razorbacks with Plasma Guns are slain when they roll a 1 to hit with it even when not overcharged.In short, don't take them.

No, no they are not. Quit with the nonsense, you’re just embarrassing yourself.

WARHAMMER 40,000 INDEX: IMPERIUM 1 Official Update Version 1.2 is explicit on the subject.

Q: Is a Razorback firing a twin plasma gun destroyed if you roll a 1 to hit?
A: Yes.

Does this ignore RaW? Yes, that's why it's a Special Snowflake FAQ. Doesn't change the fact that the FAQ exists.

Which is irrelevant for any 8th edition Codex that has a Razorback datasheet in it since the Index came out - the FAQ won't apply to the Codexes.

Yep. That FAQ applies to Index: Imperium I. Since all Factions that have Razorbacks have Codices, that FAQ is irrelevant.

-

You all know that Codex Razorbacks can't take Plasma Guns, right? It's strictly an Index legacy option. Since you're taking Index wargear options, the FAQ applies to that model since it's using Index rules, as per the Flowchart. Am I being a tad hyperbolic? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the end result.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You all know that Codex Razorbacks can't take Plasma Guns, right? It's strictly an Index legacy option. Since you're taking Index wargear options, the FAQ applies to that model since it's using Index rules, as per the Flowchart. Am I being a tad hyperbolic? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the end result.

Dude really! It’s a GAME. Get a grip

Andykp wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You all know that Codex Razorbacks can't take Plasma Guns, right? It's strictly an Index legacy option. Since you're taking Index wargear options, the FAQ applies to that model since it's using Index rules, as per the Flowchart. Am I being a tad hyperbolic? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the end result.

Dude really! It’s a GAME. Get a grip

Yes, its a game. Games are played by rules, so stick to them.

 p5freak wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You all know that Codex Razorbacks can't take Plasma Guns, right? It's strictly an Index legacy option. Since you're taking Index wargear options, the FAQ applies to that model since it's using Index rules, as per the Flowchart. Am I being a tad hyperbolic? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the end result.

Dude really! It’s a GAME. Get a grip

Yes, its a game. Games are played by rules, so stick to them.

Games are played for fun, so try and have it.

 p5freak wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You all know that Codex Razorbacks can't take Plasma Guns, right? It's strictly an Index legacy option. Since you're taking Index wargear options, the FAQ applies to that model since it's using Index rules, as per the Flowchart. Am I being a tad hyperbolic? Perhaps, but that doesn't change the end result.

Dude really! It’s a GAME. Get a grip

Yes, its a game. Games are played by rules, so stick to them.

Except for where a too literal interpretation that's pretty obviously not intended breaks the game or makes the game play like gak. When you fully well know that your interpretation is doing exactly that, insisting on it is just being TFG.
It's obvious that the question was incomplete and whoever answered had a functioning brain, thinking "oh, the question is about overcharged plasma, because otherwise asking this would make no sense".

Note that I'm not saying that the interpretation is technically wrong. It's just pointless to repeat it over and over without accepting that almost noone wants to play the game like that, and that the most accepted solution is to have the model only slain by overcharged plasma shots resulting in a 1, especially if it's combined with a "y'all are playing wrong and cheating" kinda message.

nekooni wrote:

Except for where a too literal interpretation that's pretty obviously not intended breaks the game or makes the game play like gak. When you fully well know that your interpretation is doing exactly that, insisting on it is just being TFG.
It's obvious that the question was incomplete and whoever answered had a functioning brain, thinking "oh, the question is about overcharged plasma, because otherwise asking this would make no sense".

How do you know its not intended by GW ? The rules arent always the way you want them to be.

It also doesn't matter, as GW don't even play by their own rules
They've repeatedly pointed out they provide a framework

Arguing nonsensical raw helps no one.

 p5freak wrote:

nekooni wrote:

Except for where a too literal interpretation that's pretty obviously not intended breaks the game or makes the game play like gak. When you fully well know that your interpretation is doing exactly that, insisting on it is just being TFG.
It's obvious that the question was incomplete and whoever answered had a functioning brain, thinking "oh, the question is about overcharged plasma, because otherwise asking this would make no sense".

How do you know its not intended by GW ? The rules arent always the way you want them to be.

Because it’s obvious the Q was regarding overcharged plasma. Is not remotely unclear what the question was about. If you don’t possess that kind of critical judgement it’s gonna be tough for you to navigate a GW rule set in the first place.

Pure speculation from both of you. No one, except the GW rules team knows the intent.

I won't be on the "GW totally meant for non-overcharged Plasma to kill a Razorback" brigade. Because that's silly.

I will, however, be on the "GW should write the rules better" brigade, because literal RAW, non-overcharged Plasma kills the Razorback. No, I wouldn't play it that way, but that doesn't excuse GW for fething up their rule writing.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I won't be on the "GW totally meant for non-overcharged Plasma to kill a Razorback" brigade. Because that's silly.

I will, however, be on the "GW should write the rules better" brigade, because literal RAW, non-overcharged Plasma kills the Razorback. No, I wouldn't play it that way, but that doesn't excuse GW for fething up their rule writing.

No, literall RaW only overcharged plasma kills the razorback. It's Special Snowflake FAQ "RaI" that makes non-overcharged kill the Razorback.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I won't be on the "GW totally meant for non-overcharged Plasma to kill a Razorback" brigade. Because that's silly.

I will, however, be on the "GW should write the rules better" brigade, because literal RAW, non-overcharged Plasma kills the Razorback. No, I wouldn't play it that way, but that doesn't excuse GW for fething up their rule writing.

No, literall RaW only overcharged plasma kills the razorback. It's Special Snowflake FAQ "RaI" that makes non-overcharged kill the Razorback.

You know what I mean.

The main point is, GW, get your crap together.

 p5freak wrote:
Pure speculation from both of you. No one, except the GW rules team knows the intent.

In this case, we actually very much can.

The problem is that GW's rules writers assume players will use pragmatics, rather than merely semantics, in interpreting the RAW. But their customer base includes a significant proportion of people who, to some degree, lack pragmatic competence.

Also, GW has a surfeit of creative artsy types, but no good technical writers.

And both of these things have been true since the very beginning.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I won't be on the "GW totally meant for non-overcharged Plasma to kill a Razorback" brigade. Because that's silly.

I will, however, be on the "GW should write the rules better" brigade, because literal RAW, non-overcharged Plasma kills the Razorback. No, I wouldn't play it that way, but that doesn't excuse GW for fething up their rule writing.

No, literall RaW only overcharged plasma kills the razorback. It's Special Snowflake FAQ "RaI" that makes non-overcharged kill the Razorback.

FAQ is RAW by virtue of being a rules publication. It can explain RAI but is RAW. The RAI is very much (and you know it) that non-overcharged *doesnt* kill on 1s. At least be accurately pedantic instead of inaccurately pedantically incorrect!

 Duskweaver wrote:
But their customer base includes a significant proportion of people who, to some degree, lack pragmatic competence.

The customer base also includes a large number of people who:

don't think British
don't speak English
speak languages that, when translated, do not infer the same intentions as British English
will argue over even the most simple logic, because they have limited reasoning skills
will do anything to ensure they have an advantage that either suits them or means they are right

Well, that was a pointless side-track.

It's painfully obvious that the FAQ response is only supposed to apply to overcharging. Play it by the literal RAW if it makes you feel better, but I suspect that most people will take it for what it was clearly supposed to do.

There is nothing to be gained by spinning out pages of argument over it, particularly when the actual question from the original post has been answered. Moving on.