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.

It's really not a transport, merely a tank with some modest transport capacity. The weapon loadout still seems confused though.

Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

I mean you could stuff some intercessors in it for when people eventually try and melee it

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So two things:

What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?

What good is a transport that hangs back at range?

I would fall in love with this if they mounted a Inferno Cannon and you could replace the HBs with Heavy Flamers.

Get that vehicle up close, drop troops, and unleash a ton of D6 auto-hitting shots, with good AP. Then this thing becomes instantly auto-take. It's great for obliterating chaff, and it can even somehow threaten heavy armor.

It's a nice way to keep stuff like Hellblasters or Aggressors safe if you lose 1st turn, but otherwise it's pretty superficial yes.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So two things:

What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?

What good is a transport that hangs back at range?

I dunno, ask Israel? (Merkava) Or the Land Raider.

Theoretically, to achieve land superiority before delivering troops to the objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".

 Insectum7 wrote:


I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".

The capacity to outmaneuver 36 and 48 inch guns with smart play cannot be undervalued.

Didn’t death strike missiles have infinite range at one point?

Yeah, having >48" range is relevant. 48" gives you most of the board. 72" gives you ALL of the board.

Plenty of people play on tables larger than 6' as well. The standard in the US back in the 90's was actually 8'x4' - because that's the standard size of a sheet of plywood....which was 90% of gaming surfaces. A sheet of plywood, some framing and a couple rolls of model railroad grass sheeting.

Apocalypse style games (even played without the new apocalypse rules) would almost always be played on a gaming surface larger than 6'x4'. My group routinely plays on a 6'x'5' even for normal games.

With regard to the transport capacity, I agree it's a bit silly game-wise (as is the Land Raider), but it makes sense in-universe. Now competitive players won't care, but perhaps - just perhaps there is simple fluff reasoning that these tanks carry mounted infantry. Doesn't need to play out on the table to be a function of the vehicle.

Sterling191 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:

Well we've seen a few things already assuming the following...

185 for chassis
30 for heavy onslaught
17 for twin heavy bolter
12? for the back twin stubber
8 for krakstorm
6 for pintle heavy stubber
4 for two storm bolters
0 for auto launchers

Base 262 for the unit, with the macro plasma as 31 bringing that to 293. Rumour of 315 makes the laser destroyer 50+ points. The closest comparison is the neutron laser at 48" with 1D3 shots and a stubber for 47 points. I think that kind of fits.

I'd asterisk the chassis price point. Executioner doesnt have the same transport capacity, and should (I know, I know, applying logic to GW at my own peril) be somewhat less expensive as a result.

That's never happened before in Astartes vehicles, but I think the double shoot main turret option is a fair trade off.

All my argument is here is that 315 for that isn't at all out of the question and could be accurate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So two things:

What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?

What good is a transport that hangs back at range?

I would fall in love with this if they mounted a Inferno Cannon and you could replace the HBs with Heavy Flamers.

Get that vehicle up close, drop troops, and unleash a ton of D6 auto-hitting shots, with good AP. Then this thing becomes instantly auto-take. It's great for obliterating chaff, and it can even somehow threaten heavy armor.

Stop thinking of this as a transport with an MBT weapon and more as an MBT with bonus transport capability. You don't have to use it, but protection a backline unit is an option here.

Since no Astartes vehicle appears to cost substantially different in points due to transport capacity, I think this myth should hopefully die. Think of it as a bonus not a purpose.

Also, keep in mind this unit was originally showcased this week in an Apocalypse article. 72" is pretty relevant there. Hell, it's pretty relevant on any table above the "standard", which can and does happen when the game has three ways to play.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

Technically, the recommended board size for a 2001+ game is 4'x8'. I don't know anyone who owns a table that big, though. I have played a bunch of games on a ping-pong table, though, which are bigger than 4'x6'.

As for absurd range weapons [like the Deathstrike's formerly infinite range], I have played games where the board is larger than the range of a Shadowsword. Usually, these are played on the floor.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So two things:

What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?

What good is a transport that hangs back at range?

I dunno, ask Israel? (Merkava) Or the Land Raider.

Theoretically, to achieve land superiority before delivering troops to the objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".

Land superiority comes AFTER Air superiority, which is like one of the top three rules at the War College for the US Army. You Take the skies, then you send in tanks. According to standard '00s doctrine of take and hold, Infantry are a final measure used only in coordination with air superiority (Fixed wing or other), almost never without. Hence why even 10th MN now has attached Rotary Wing squadrons.

So getting back to the world of imagination, where plants become sentient Cockneys with 1930's era weaponry, and Space turns men into demons;

what in the current edition, standard game set, would the point of a 72" gun on a transport be? I have heard melee screen, which is odd, because this particular vehicle has the fly keyword I think(?) and can fallback over troops, and still shoot.

I think it's to make these threatening wherever they are on a standard sized board. If we go forward with that assumption, then it logically follows that they want a transport to be a potential tank hunter. But that is invalidated by the fact that it's only got 2 shots at that range, unless it doesn't move, in which case 4. So therein lays the confusion.

What method's would you use this? Would you:

advance, loose the shooting phase, and drop troops, hoping it survives to shoot next turn,
move under half, drop troops, shoot twice, and have intercessors miss the charge phase,
or
move full, drop troops, shoot once, (Maybe charge?)

I don't get the idea behind it's biggest gun. It's just counter to it's overall purpose. Unless the purpose is dedicated tank hunter, in which case WHY IS IT TRANSPORT?

Just because you can fall back with the fly keyword doesn't mean you should get in combat to begin with

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Lances have less range and get boned by invulns even worse. There is a low rof weapon problem, not a lance vs lascannon problem.

Yeah - 1 shot weapons are bad period. But these 2 weapons are equal value. I've even seen it debated that rockets are better pointed than lascannons. Rockets are a bright lance with -2 AP instead of -4 LOL (they cost the same).

So your argument is that MLs are better pointed than a Lascannon - which depends on -3AP vs -2AP and +1S is less of a benefit over the Krak option? While arguing that -4AP vs -3AP is more beneficial than 48" range and +1S?
What makes going from -2AP to -3AP worth so much less than going from -3AP to -4AP? I can't think of a single upside. In every case I've seen, there's a lot more value on the other end of the scale - going from 0AP to -1AP being the best step.

It's like you guys have never played marines and got hit with AP-4 on basically every weapon and you get 0 save.

A large part of that is because I never see anyone field an entire army of Fire Dragons or Melta Vets.
If you're getting destroyed by Brightlances (and/or Melta Guns) here's a suggestion: try taking some Marines. They'll trade fire with most Brightlance weapons platforms wonderfully. Granted, they're crap at most of the game, but BrightLances aren't exactly a good tool for killing buckets of Marines. A *boltgun* does that better (per points).

Then you shoot a lascannon at a fireprism and they make a 6+....Dude...trust me. The weapons are of equal value.

I don't trust you.
I don't see how Prisms/Preds/etc gaining a 6+ outweighs wounding the most important targets on 3+. Or hitting on 3s much more often.

Most of the time, both weapons do the same thing: wound on 2s for infantry, 3s for anything but the hard targets. No armor save rolled. The differences are the corner cases.
The corner cases where the Brightlance wins are:
-T7 *and* lower 3+ Sv and better better with absolutely no invluns targets that are within 36". A 16% advantage.
The corner cases where the Lascannon wins are:
-Anything T8+. A 33% advantage.
-Anything 36-48" away. A 33% advantage.
-Anything both T8 and 36-48" away. A roughly 70% advantage.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

As some people.have pointed out, 72" is corner-to-corner on a 4'x6'. Also, we play corner deployments on a 4'x10' with a 48" no-man's-land semi-regularly.

I've used Fire Prisms outside 48" from time to time. It's not frequently the case, but it does happen on 4x6 boards in real games.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Lances have less range and get boned by invulns even worse. There is a low rof weapon problem, not a lance vs lascannon problem.

Yeah - 1 shot weapons are bad period. But these 2 weapons are equal value. I've even seen it debated that rockets are better pointed than lascannons. Rockets are a bright lance with -2 AP instead of -4 LOL (they cost the same).

So your argument is that MLs are better pointed than a Lascannon - which depends on -3AP vs -2AP and +1S is less of a benefit over the Krak option? While arguing that -4AP vs -3AP is more beneficial than 48" range and +1S?
What makes going from -2AP to -3AP worth so much less than going from -3AP to -4AP? I can't think of a single upside. In every case I've seen, there's a lot more value on the other end of the scale - going from 0AP to -1AP being the best step.

It's like you guys have never played marines and got hit with AP-4 on basically every weapon and you get 0 save.

A large part of that is because I never see anyone field an entire army of Fire Dragons or Melta Vets.
If you're getting destroyed by Brightlances (and/or Melta Guns) here's a suggestion: try taking some Marines. They'll trade fire with most Brightlance weapons platforms wonderfully. Granted, they're crap at most of the game, but BrightLances aren't exactly a good tool for killing buckets of Marines. A *boltgun* does that better (per points).

Then you shoot a lascannon at a fireprism and they make a 6+....Dude...trust me. The weapons are of equal value.

I don't trust you.
I don't see how Prisms/Preds/etc gaining a 6+ outweighs wounding the most important targets on 3+. Or hitting on 3s much more often.

Most of the time, both weapons do the same thing: wound on 2s for infantry, 3s for anything but the hard targets. No armor save rolled. The differences are the corner cases.
The corner cases where the Brightlance wins are:
-T7 *and* lower 3+ Sv and better better with absolutely no invluns targets that are within 36". A 16% advantage.
The corner cases where the Lascannon wins are:
-Anything T8+. A 33% advantage.
-Anything 36-48" away. A 33% advantage.
-Anything both T8 and 36-48" away. A roughly 70% advantage.

My argument is people actually advocate taking rockets over lascannons on Devs and long fangs because you save 5 points. BL is the same points except gets -4 ap and compared to -2....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

As some people.have pointed out, 72" is corner-to-corner on a 4'x6'. Also, we play corner deployments on a 4'x10' with a 48" no-man's-land semi-regularly.

48 inches apart? Holy crap. That is just silly.

Because it's cool.

I'm sure some people do advocate that, but most people still seem to pick LCs over MLs. For good reasons.

But the ML isn't just a BL with AP-2. It also has 48" range. And a Frag profile (although it's not great). Sure, the Frag profile is overcosted. But that's not just an SM/IoM problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So two things:

What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?

What good is a transport that hangs back at range?

I dunno, ask Israel? (Merkava) Or the Land Raider.

Theoretically, to achieve land superiority before delivering troops to the objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

I've definitely played on larger boards. But even on regular 6x4s I've often required range greater than 48".

Land superiority comes AFTER Air superiority, which is like one of the top three rules at the War College for the US Army. You Take the skies, then you send in tanks. According to standard '00s doctrine of take and hold, Infantry are a final measure used only in coordination with air superiority (Fixed wing or other), almost never without. Hence why even 10th MN now has attached Rotary Wing squadrons.

So getting back to the world of imagination, where plants become sentient Cockneys with 1930's era weaponry, and Space turns men into demons;

what in the current edition, standard game set, would the point of a 72" gun on a transport be? I have heard melee screen, which is odd, because this particular vehicle has the fly keyword I think(?) and can fallback over troops, and still shoot.

I think it's to make these threatening wherever they are on a standard sized board. If we go forward with that assumption, then it logically follows that they want a transport to be a potential tank hunter. But that is invalidated by the fact that it's only got 2 shots at that range, unless it doesn't move, in which case 4. So therein lays the confusion.

What method's would you use this? Would you:

advance, loose the shooting phase, and drop troops, hoping it survives to shoot next turn,
move under half, drop troops, shoot twice, and have intercessors miss the charge phase,
or
move full, drop troops, shoot once, (Maybe charge?)

I don't get the idea behind it's biggest gun. It's just counter to it's overall purpose. Unless the purpose is dedicated tank hunter, in which case WHY IS IT TRANSPORT?

Because it's cool.

See also: Falcons. One of the few 48" guns for Craftworlders. On a transport.

Same concept. It's an MBT that has some transport cap - practically incidentally.

Martel732 wrote:
I havent seen a chimera or taurox all edition. I have seen russes, commander russes, manticores, basilisks, wyvern, and hellhounds. All of which are far superior to a razorback. Slots dont matter in 8th as much as what you can get for your point. Compared to ig, marines get damn little.

Razors are trash. You're just fooling yourself.

You know what?

A Razorback point-for-point compares fairly favorably with a Basilisk.

For a net difference of 2 points...
A Razorback has +1T
A Catachan Basilisk has about 7% better base average offensive capability
A Not-Catachan Basilisk has 6% less base average offensive capability than a Razorback
A Razorback loses 24% of it's offensive capability after 6 wounds, a Basilisk loses 33% of it's offensive capability after the same

While a Basilisk is IF capable, though a Razorback has transport that can be used to help secure the first turn and to protect high offensive power low-defense units [like the aforementioned Long Fangs].




That said, and back to the Repulsor, while I like Razorbacks, I don't like expensive transports. Transport, IMO, are only good when they're dirt-cheap and are protecting a unit more valuable than themselves. If it's an expesive transport, like the Repulsor Executioner, you're not really getting the defensive value of loading it up, and loading it up with expensive things is just kind of giving bonus points for smacking it about. However, it might be valid to load it up with it's support characters to go for drop reduction to try to get the first turn, if that's still relevant to your scenario.

I don't think the transport of the Executioner is really a selling point. It's just sort of an extra.

Indirect fire is very valuable. Carrying around old marines is not. At least, not to me. It a little better for space wolves for sure.

What about the rest of the list?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So two things:

What is the point of a 70+" shot on a unit that transports troops CLOSER to the battle?

What good is a transport that hangs back at range?

I would fall in love with this if they mounted a Inferno Cannon and you could replace the HBs with Heavy Flamers.

Get that vehicle up close, drop troops, and unleash a ton of D6 auto-hitting shots, with good AP. Then this thing becomes instantly auto-take. It's great for obliterating chaff, and it can even somehow threaten heavy armor.

Well for me, I'm going to stick my Heavy Hellblasters in it for the first turn, get out my first movement phase and shoot. It's an extra layer of protection for my Plasma Bois!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Lances have less range and get boned by invulns even worse. There is a low rof weapon problem, not a lance vs lascannon problem.

Yeah - 1 shot weapons are bad period. But these 2 weapons are equal value. I've even seen it debated that rockets are better pointed than lascannons. Rockets are a bright lance with -2 AP instead of -4 LOL (they cost the same).

So your argument is that MLs are better pointed than a Lascannon - which depends on -3AP vs -2AP and +1S is less of a benefit over the Krak option? While arguing that -4AP vs -3AP is more beneficial than 48" range and +1S?
What makes going from -2AP to -3AP worth so much less than going from -3AP to -4AP? I can't think of a single upside. In every case I've seen, there's a lot more value on the other end of the scale - going from 0AP to -1AP being the best step.

It's like you guys have never played marines and got hit with AP-4 on basically every weapon and you get 0 save.

A large part of that is because I never see anyone field an entire army of Fire Dragons or Melta Vets.
If you're getting destroyed by Brightlances (and/or Melta Guns) here's a suggestion: try taking some Marines. They'll trade fire with most Brightlance weapons platforms wonderfully. Granted, they're crap at most of the game, but BrightLances aren't exactly a good tool for killing buckets of Marines. A *boltgun* does that better (per points).

Then you shoot a lascannon at a fireprism and they make a 6+....Dude...trust me. The weapons are of equal value.

I don't trust you.
I don't see how Prisms/Preds/etc gaining a 6+ outweighs wounding the most important targets on 3+. Or hitting on 3s much more often.

Most of the time, both weapons do the same thing: wound on 2s for infantry, 3s for anything but the hard targets. No armor save rolled. The differences are the corner cases.
The corner cases where the Brightlance wins are:
-T7 *and* lower 3+ Sv and better better with absolutely no invluns targets that are within 36". A 16% advantage.
The corner cases where the Lascannon wins are:
-Anything T8+. A 33% advantage.
-Anything 36-48" away. A 33% advantage.
-Anything both T8 and 36-48" away. A roughly 70% advantage.

My argument is people actually advocate taking rockets over lascannons on Devs and long fangs because you save 5 points. BL is the same points except gets -4 ap and compared to -2....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

As some people.have pointed out, 72" is corner-to-corner on a 4'x6'. Also, we play corner deployments on a 4'x10' with a 48" no-man's-land semi-regularly.

48 inches apart? Holy crap. That is just silly.

I always run triple missile dev squads when I can. Love missile launchers.

Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....

What gets me about primaris transports is that they're already very juicy targets to blow up, but then when you put valuable infantry inside you make them even MORE juicy and don't really provide much protection at all if the transport goes down to anti tank before the anti infantry opens up.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....

??? Hellblasters have rapid-fire weapons. Why would they be exploding on 2's after bailing?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....

Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.

Also I rarely overcharge anyways. That's why I play the heavy vrsion of the gun so they're at S8 already.

 Togusa wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....

Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.

Moving certainly could make guns more likely to blow up if they're as unstable as plasma! Delicate machinery that stuff, blows up frequently enough when stationary, so hustling that gear around while firing surely can't be good for it!

That said, almost no one runs Heavy Hellblasters. Rapid fire ones are so much better, and they don't shoot at -1 when moving.

 Stux wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....

Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.

Moving certainly could make guns more likely to blow up if they're as unstable as plasma! Delicate machinery that stuff, blows up frequently enough when stationary, so hustling that gear around while firing surely can't be good for it!

That said, almost no one runs Heavy Hellblasters. Rapid fire ones are so much better, and they don't shoot at -1 when moving.

To each their own. I run them because I get the S8 without the risk.

 Togusa wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wait, you are suicidal if you run Hellblasters in a Transport. They already explode on 1s, now you make them explode on 2s by disembarking and shooting....

Our local group ignores that rule. We erattaed everything to "NATURAL 1" because moving doesn't make guns more likely to blow up.

Also I rarely overcharge anyways. That's why I play the heavy vrsion of the gun so they're at S8 already.

But now you cant compare results.....

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Seriously, what purpose would you have to keep this thing on the opposite ends of the board?

For that matter, who has ever played on a board larger than 6'? The rules state the board has to be 4'x6'. And you deploy on the long sides. Who here is taking a 72" shot? Outside of indirect fires, or extreme situations, is there a reason to have a direct fire gun that ranges beyond that?

What is the purpose of the Volcano Cannon's 120" range? Or the Death Strike's 400.

If you play narrative, there are effects that reduce shooting range by 1/2. Def useful then.