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.

How do?

So yes, for the purposes of this thread, I am an idiot. I have precious little experience of 8th Ed, so my opinion carries no weight. But I hope you’ll indulge my rambling nonetheless.

The Space Marine Attack Bike. When I last properly and regularly played 40k, they were pretty decent. A fast, resilient and accurate Heavy Weapon platform.

Me? I preferred the Multi-Melta option. If you’re gonna be fast and dinky, you might as well hunt the biggest of big game, no?

Yet I still retained (and indeed retain) a soft spot for the Heavy Bolter option. As a squadron, used right, they provided solid additional firepower where and when you needed it. It was also, back then (5th, maybe 6th ed) pretty cheap for what it offered. The platform itself was surprisingly tough (T5, W2, 2+ save. I may be wrong on Bits of this). It was an oddity type unit, in that whilst not outright deadly, it took a disproportionate effort to bring it down.

Yet in 8th Ed? It needs more options on the guns. Because they can now freely split fire. Why not Lascannon option? Why not Gravcannon (or whatever it’s called) option?

So yeah. It’s not particularly coherent as arguments go, but hopefully you’ll get what I’m getting at.

And, come to think of it? Where the bloody effing flip are the Chaos equivalents!

I think a heavy flamer option on an attack bike could have a lot of use.

Attack Bike armament is a bit of an odd one - the Legion (30k) Attack Bike can also take an Autocannon or Heavy Flamer whereas the Legion Land Speeder can take a Graviton Gun, Havoc Launcher, Plasma Cannon, Volkite Culverin...

I kind of like the Attack Bike now. It's a crazy cheap Fast Attack choice if you're brigade-building.

The idea of a Lascannon or GravCannon on an Attack Bike seems out of place to me, although they'd be welcome. Personally though, I want Heavy Flamers, if only because of a Vehicle Card I used to play back in 2nd.

The Heavy Bolter plus the Bolter Discipline gives the Attack Bike 7 shots at 24" currently, iirc.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And, come to think of it? Where the bloody effing flip are the Chaos equivalents!

Isn't it one of those things that was post-Heresy, until it wasn't (like marine-portable Plasma Cannons & Multi-meltas)?

The main problem AB has - it's fast attack choice with heavy weapon and no rules to mitigate -1 to-hit modificator. So you either moving and losing your firepower, or it just a wierd overpriced 2 wound devastator.
Should it get such rule (and cost less pts), it could actually be a good platform for the multy-melta.

I love the attack bike. Sadly the multi melta sucks now. If it did like d6+6dmg or something like that it would actually be able to kill tanks again and be usefull. Now with the - 1 to hit for moving and a lame gun stat it just cant perform.

The concept is great though and maybe it can be used better in the upcoming apocalypse game.

beast_gts wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And, come to think of it? Where the bloody effing flip are the Chaos equivalents!

Isn't it one of those things that was post-Heresy, until it wasn't (like marine-portable Plasma Cannons & Multi-meltas)?

There need to be things marines get that Chaos don't. Though admittedly it's less of an issue now Primaris are a thing!

 Stux wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And, come to think of it? Where the bloody effing flip are the Chaos equivalents!

Isn't it one of those things that was post-Heresy, until it wasn't (like marine-portable Plasma Cannons & Multi-meltas)?

There need to be things marines get that Chaos don't. Though admittedly it's less of an issue now Primaris are a thing!

As someone who plays both, if GW ever does outright REPLACE old marines with Primaris I hope they'll at least try to move some of the real classic marine units over to chaos. things like land speeders. etc. Some of it like razorbacks could proably also go to sisters of battle. I mean if space Marines are no longer using them, why not hand land raiders off to SOBs?

I'd say the main use of solitary Attack Bikes is a cheap slot filler if you're trying to fill a Brigade. That said, if a SM player is CP-mining, I think they're usually going to be better off with a double Battalion. Or fielding the Loyal 32, if the player doesn't mind mixing his force.co

I haven't used MM ABs on their own since 8th dropped, but I have messed with them attached to a Bike Squad with 2 plasma guns and a combi-plasma. The range profile on the MM is similar to the range profile of a plasma gun - usable at 24", optimal at 12". The AB also makes a handy place to dump wounds. That said, as a DA player, I wish there was a plasma cannon AB. Better for use with WotDA. Unfortunately, GW is unlikely to innovate with the OldMarine line.I'm waiting to see what Primaris will bring to the Ravenwing and Deathwing.

They myphitic blight hauler is basically a Death Guard attack bike, except it has an additional missile launcher.

In my opinion, what attack bikes and land speeders need most is a either have their heavy guns turned into assault versions or get a rule that allows them to move and shoot without penalty.

The Attack bike is a prime example of a unit that would benefit from my suggested Heavy weapon changes for all Marines.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/776847.page

To summarize, I think Multi-meltas should be Heavy 2 and that Astartes Heavy Bolters should have a firing mode that is RF2 (could easily be added to the Bolter Discipline rule).
Both changes would benefit Attack Bikes.

Having 2 Shots can mitigate not having a way to ignore the -1 to hit penalty on the MM.
HB being RF2 on a BIKE means 4 shots all the time (and no -1 to hit penalty for moving)

Those 2 changes minimum would make Attack Bikes more appealing to bring.
I'd also like to see things available to them such as Heavy Flamers, Plasma Cannons. etc, but that would require a new kit, which I doubt GW is interested in doing at all (since ABs are not Primaris)

-

I often run three squads of three, with a multi melta in each squad using salamander tactics.
For 369 points you get 36 wounds that shrugs off anti infantry firepower quite well, decent amount of firepower, 36 bolter shots, 18 heavy bolter shots and three multi melta shots with the salamander re-rolls for the meltas mostly.
They've usually done well for me, they're fast with decent anti infantry dakka and if they're targeted by heavier firepower that keeps my more valuable dreads safe.
I suspect running them with just bolters as raven guard is the more optimal version but I don't think they're bad seeing as they add speed and cheap wounds to marines.

the only time i have seen them work is on heavy terrain boards where the single small model can keep zippign up out of line of sight until it delivers a multimelta shot where needed, even then it is a 50% chance to hit. but even if it doens't hit then its a pretty pirority target for the opponent . if you have positioned it correctly your opponents movement will be impacted as they have to move enough fire power to remove a T5 4w 3+ model which should be ravenguard and -1 to hit from most things outside of what it shot at.

not the most powerful thing, but a decent tool to have in the backposket especially in the FA slot x3 for a batallion. land speeders are better but more points and harder to hide.

Bikes I think have been wonky in most editions, because GW doesn't quite know what they want them to be. GW has written their basic functionality to be analagous to Fantasy mounted heavy cavalry, but usually tried to then pigeonhole them into minmax'd special/heavy weapon delivery systems.

I dont think GW really envisions the attack bike as a long range heavy weapons platform however, SM biker units generally have typically been relatively short ranged in terms of firepower, barring maybe the exception of the Heavy Bolter but that fits with the WW2 sidecar aesthetic that spawned the idea.

That said, I think a lot of similar units are in a poor place. Necron Destroyers, Guard Sentinels, Land Speeders, etc all kinda feel somewhat underwhelming for what they bring filling a broadly similar niche.

@OP:

The sacred duality of heavy bolter & multi-melta shall not be questioned by a mere mortal. Report to your local confessor and repent of your unfaithful conduct.

Vaktathi, that's mostly because once armor facings stopped being a thing mobility largely stopped mattering. These days speed only matters in terms of "can I get into weapon range" and/or "can I get to that objective", and one of those presumes you're playing a scenario.

 Strg Alt wrote:
@OP:

The sacred duality of heavy bolter & multi-melta shall not be questioned by a mere mortal. Report to your local confessor and repent of your unfaithful conduct.

Any documents depicting Attack Bikes carrying Heavy Flamers are heretical and to be burned on discovery. Any actual examples of Attack Bikes carrying Heavy Flamers are holy relics however, deliver them to the Chapter Sanctum to be preserved in stasis at the earliest opportunity.

Silver144 wrote:
The main problem AB has - it's fast attack choice with heavy weapon and no rules to mitigate -1 to-hit modificator. So you either moving and losing your firepower, or it just a wierd overpriced 2 wound devastator.
Should it get such rule (and cost less pts), it could actually be a good platform for the multy-melta.

Four wounds on an AB, for what it's worth.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoiler:

Bikes I think have been wonky in most editions, because GW doesn't quite know what they want them to be. GW has written their basic functionality to be analagous to Fantasy mounted heavy cavalry, but usually tried to then pigeonhole them into minmax'd special/heavy weapon delivery systems.

I dont think GW really envisions the attack bike as a long range heavy weapons platform however, SM biker units generally have typically been relatively short ranged in terms of firepower, barring maybe the exception of the Heavy Bolter but that fits with the WW2 sidecar aesthetic that spawned the idea.

That said, I think a lot of similar units are in a poor place. Necron Destroyers, Guard Sentinels, Land Speeders, etc all kinda feel somewhat underwhelming for what they bring filling a broadly similar niche.

Destroyers are awesome. One of the most underrated unit in necron codex.

Bikes should get Relentless back

 Vector Strike wrote:
Bikes should get Relentless back

No, not as a blanket rule for all BIKES.
But on a "per unit" basis, I could see Attack Bikes having a bespoke rule to ignore the -1 to hit form moving. Necron Destoyers do after all, so why not Marine Attack Bikes? I mean the Heavy weapon gunner is in a comfy seat and is only in charge of firing the weapon. He doesn't have to stabilize his stance like walking Infantry and isn't driving the bike itself.

I still think a better option for all Marines would be for MMs to be Heavy 2 and Astartes Heavy Bolters to have a RF2 optional firing mode, but if that is off the table, targeting Attack Bikes and maybe Landspeeders with "Relentless" is a good second option

-

I have a couple of Attack Bikes with MM in my Ravenwing army. They are OK as single entries because they can hide, put a ranged shot occasionally and just be an irritation. The firepower is negligible though. I may give them another whirl since they do benefit from the Ravenwing Signal the Attack Strategem to negate the -1 to hit from Heavy Weapons. Still, a MM AB is 49pts which is not super cheap. I wouldn't mind having an assault cannon on one as it would gel with the 24" range bolter, but that weapon needs to come down in price since you no longer see Razorback or stormraven spam.

 Galef wrote:

 Vector Strike wrote:
Bikes should get Relentless back

No, not as a blanket rule for all BIKES.
But on a "per unit" basis, I could see Attack Bikes having a bespoke rule to ignore the -1 to hit form moving. Necron Destoyers do after all, so why not Marine Attack Bikes? I mean the Heavy weapon gunner is in a comfy seat and is only in charge of firing the weapon. He doesn't have to stabilize his stance like walking Infantry and isn't driving the bike itself.

I still think a better option for all Marines would be for MMs to be Heavy 2 and Astartes Heavy Bolters to have a RF2 optional firing mode, but if that is off the table, targeting Attack Bikes and maybe Landspeeders with "Relentless" is a good second option

-

I think there is definitely a case for overhauling the stats on the MM and HB kinda across the board, as they're not terribly great on almost any platform.

The Newman wrote:
Vaktathi, that's mostly because once armor facings stopped being a thing mobility largely stopped mattering. These days speed only matters in terms of "can I get into weapon range" and/or "can I get to that objective", and one of those presumes you're playing a scenario.

to be fair, I think that was mostly true in previous editions as well, I dont think facings mattered all that much in previous editions, as they not only applied purely to vehicles (e.g. catching a Carnifex or Vibrocannon battery or Guard heavy weapons squad from the flank didn't have any tactical value), but even most vehicles didn't have armor that rewarded positioning as they had either identical or near identical front/side armor (e.g. all Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Necron vehicles, all SM & SoB vehicles except Preds and Vindis and Exorcists, etc).

 Vaktathi wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Vaktathi, that's mostly because once armor facings stopped being a thing mobility largely stopped mattering. These days speed only matters in terms of "can I get into weapon range" and/or "can I get to that objective", and one of those presumes you're playing a scenario.

to be fair, I think that was mostly true in previous editions as well, I dont think facings mattered all that much in previous editions, as they not only applied purely to vehicles (e.g. catching a Carnifex or Vibrocannon battery or Guard heavy weapons squad from the flank didn't have any tactical value), but even most vehicles didn't have armor that rewarded positioning as they had either identical or near identical front/side armor (e.g. all Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Necron vehicles, all SM & SoB vehicles except Preds and Vindis and Exorcists, etc).

I really appreciated the use of the facing mechanic for the different armies though, because it did shape the tactics. IG tanks had to keep a defensive posture in order to not get flanked, while Eldar with a number of mobile units with S6 weapons were well poised to take advantage of flanking. Dreadnoughts and Land Raiders were build to be surrounded, while Predators had to keep their distance. It was subtle but nice.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

The Newman wrote:
Vaktathi, that's mostly because once armor facings stopped being a thing mobility largely stopped mattering. These days speed only matters in terms of "can I get into weapon range" and/or "can I get to that objective", and one of those presumes you're playing a scenario.

to be fair, I think that was mostly true in previous editions as well, I dont think facings mattered all that much in previous editions, as they not only applied purely to vehicles (e.g. catching a Carnifex or Vibrocannon battery or Guard heavy weapons squad from the flank didn't have any tactical value), but even most vehicles didn't have armor that rewarded positioning as they had either identical or near identical front/side armor (e.g. all Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Necron vehicles, all SM & SoB vehicles except Preds and Vindis and Exorcists, etc).

I really appreciated the use of the facing mechanic for the different armies though, because it did shape the tactics. IG tanks had to keep a defensive posture in order to not get flanked, while Eldar with a number of mobile units with S6 weapons were well poised to take advantage of flanking. Dreadnoughts and Land Raiders were build to be surrounded, while Predators had to keep their distance. It was subtle but nice.

In some respects I can understand and appreciate that, but I think in the grand scheme of things any subtlety was more in spite of the system than because of it. In practice it meant only *one* army (IG) ever really had to worry about facings much, where it basically incentivized them to play as a boring static gunline terrified of advancing (and a large part of that was the fact that the side armor was *such* a low value as to be vulnerable to the basic small arms of every army except itself and auto-pen'd by any real AT weapon), while nobody else much cared except for maybe one or two units in half the remaining armies (and half of those either had a turret or didn't need to worry about moving or LoS anyway).

To use the SM example, looking at my CSMs in the hobby closet, yeah my Predators might care, but they had a turret and could freely shift facing in place and were never advancing anyway if they could help it (if for no other reason than the move and fire rules, and so only cared basically if something DS'd next to them), while the Rhinos, dreadnoughts, land raider and daemon engines all didn't care.

In general being a Skimmer was of far greater importance with respect to resiliency than having great AV or showing a weak facing through most of the 3E-7E paradigm.

Knights did make that a bit different with their shields toward the end of that era, but then they were basically a skirmish scale army blown up to work at a company level.

Multimelta sucks since it's only one shot on a heavy weapon, that costs like 27 pts. Maybe d3 shots in Melta range might make it better?

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Multimelta sucks since it's only one shot on a heavy weapon, that costs like 27 pts. Maybe d3 shots in Melta range might make it better?

The Multimelta got dropped to 22 points in the last CA. It's still too expensive, but not quite as grossly overcosted as it was before.

The Newman wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Multimelta sucks since it's only one shot on a heavy weapon, that costs like 27 pts. Maybe d3 shots in Melta range might make it better?

The Multimelta got dropped to 22 points in the last CA. It's still too expensive, but not quite as grossly overcosted as it was before.

And D3 shots would be a step in the right direction, but it already get extra damage at half range. The easier and more logical solution would be to make it Heavy 2 at all ranges.
Keeps the random rolling to a minimum, "properly" represents a weapon the LOOKS like a Twin-Melta on steroids (2 barrels) and sets it apart from a Lascannon
You still want to get close with it, but by having 2 shots, you don't get as penalized by the -1 to hit.

Plus, Plasma Cannons are already Heavy D3. so we don't; need another one of those

-

Yeah, GW forgot about the "multi" in multimelta

hell. just give em all hurricane bolters. As someone who had entire units decimated by adeptus custodes' jetbikes, just give them the things and be happy with more dakka. /sarcasm

Given that the MM was originally a blast weapon before 3E, I think it might bear looking at changing it back to that, a D3 shots iteration or the like might be a good across the board fix.