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.

You called it: cheap T8 vehicle used mainly for board control. Hunters more than Stalkers because they're cheaper.

If you happen to come up against flyers, you can take the shots. If not, you can use them to block and tag things and claim objectives. You don't really care if anything tags them because it was only one shot that might not have a target anyway.

Robtype0 wrote:
What am I missing about Stalkers and Hunters? I've started seeing them in lists more and more since the new codex, and they don't seem to really have a role that cheaper units can't do more effectively. Is it the cheap T8 platform? Or is it their consistency against flyers?

They are dirt cheap now is the reason. 75pts for a T8 vehicle with a improved lascannon is pretty good.

I tried them recently with rhinos as stand-ins. They did okay, nothing to write home about.

1. @ GreatGranpapy : All shooting happens at once when it comes to squad shooting so even if you roll and kill a guardsman under your idea the guardsman already shot so still gets to roll. So that wouldn't work.

2. @ Robtype0 : They are actually really good. T8 makes them survive a lot more than t7 does. The hunter is a terrific las cannon platform, it gets to reroll itself and has nice range for 75 pts, it's a steal of a unit. Stalkers also put out a lot of shots for their cost and now that devistator doctrines are what they are they are even better. An imperial fist stalker puts out 6 str 7 ap-2 3dmg flat shots hitting on 2's vs anything that flies. A lot of flyers are t6 so this is quite strong for 95 pts considering that there are a ton of things out there that fly. Any eldar vehicle, most tau vehicles, most necron vehicles, even imperial armies have a few go to flyers. Add in full rerolls from a chapter master now and how powerful iron hand fliers are I can see these things getting a lot of use.

And their stratagem is quite powerful and cheap, too !

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Robtype0 wrote:
What am I missing about Stalkers and Hunters? I've started seeing them in lists more and more since the new codex, and they don't seem to really have a role that cheaper units can't do more effectively. Is it the cheap T8 platform? Or is it their consistency against flyers?

They are dirt cheap now is the reason. 75pts for a T8 vehicle with a improved lascannon is pretty good.

I tried them recently with rhinos as stand-ins. They did okay, nothing to write home about.

That's about my experience. However, said improved Lascannon is pretty independent, which is nice. Throw on a HK and you're really set to sit there and take potshots at stuff.

Thanks guys, this gives some perspective. I still think 75pts is pricey for a lascannon, albeit a very accurate one, but the utility of the chassis' sheer toughness (and effective mobility as Iron Hands) could certainly give it a role.

It wouldn't be too bad for filling out a Brigade so keep that in mind. Might not be as TAC as a TFC but it will be tougher.

So, once again: what do you think of heavy plasma Hellblasters with IF superdoctrine. Do they look relatively competitive now?
For around the same price, they are significantly better than Lascannon Devastators with twice the wounds.
I know they are not 5 heavy bolters, which is the only thing that should be fielded as IF but they can benefit greatly from 2+ to hit with reroll 1s and Tank Hunters.
Their bane is invulnerable saves (there is always null zone) and they will be less useful once (if) you go to Tactical doctrine. Plus they won't be very good against monsters.
But, it's always nice to find some use for rare units.

DanielFM wrote:
So, once again: what do you think of heavy plasma Hellblasters with IF superdoctrine. Do they look relatively competitive now?
For around the same price, they are significantly better than Lascannon Devastators with twice the wounds.
I know they are not 5 heavy bolters, which is the only thing that should be fielded as IF but they can benefit greatly from 2+ to hit with reroll 1s and Tank Hunters.
Their bane is invulnerable saves (there is always null zone) and they will be less useful once (if) you go to Tactical doctrine. Plus they won't be very good against monsters.
But, it's always nice to find some use for rare units.

Why take them over suppressors?

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

DanielFM wrote:
So, once again: what do you think of heavy plasma Hellblasters with IF superdoctrine. Do they look relatively competitive now?
For around the same price, they are significantly better than Lascannon Devastators with twice the wounds.
I know they are not 5 heavy bolters, which is the only thing that should be fielded as IF but they can benefit greatly from 2+ to hit with reroll 1s and Tank Hunters.
Their bane is invulnerable saves (there is always null zone) and they will be less useful once (if) you go to Tactical doctrine. Plus they won't be very good against monsters.
But, it's always nice to find some use for rare units.

Why take them over suppressors?

AP -5? Pretty much garbage. IMO the heavy should be d3 shots...like...a plasma cannon.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

DanielFM wrote:
So, once again: what do you think of heavy plasma Hellblasters with IF superdoctrine. Do they look relatively competitive now?
For around the same price, they are significantly better than Lascannon Devastators with twice the wounds.
I know they are not 5 heavy bolters, which is the only thing that should be fielded as IF but they can benefit greatly from 2+ to hit with reroll 1s and Tank Hunters.
Their bane is invulnerable saves (there is always null zone) and they will be less useful once (if) you go to Tactical doctrine. Plus they won't be very good against monsters.
But, it's always nice to find some use for rare units.

Why take them over suppressors?

Personal taste? I hate the Suppressor model and concept. They get mobility they will hardly ever use if they want to remain functional.
Plus, they benefit less from buffs (several smaller squads instead of big one).
Surprisingly, they do exactly the same damage against T8 3+ save no invul, with no external buffs. Against t7 and less Suppressors come ahead. Against T8 2+, Hellblasters are better.
As I said, just new tools, not necessarily better. Plus, they feel way more IF-y than stealthy firefighters with jetpacks

Should they be 1d3 shots? For sure. They are what they are, there is very little we can do now about it.

I get hating Suppressors, and I hate them for the same reason I hate Eliminators: garbage excuse of a box creating a "full" unit. None of the other Primaris units suffer this.

Heavy incinerators remain total trash, even for Imperial Fists. Imperial Fists can take some kind of gun that is not trash instead if they want.

Suppressors have more range and don't explode. They're also significantly cheaper per model and have twice as many shots if you're firing at smaller targets. They seem reasonably good.

Stalkers might be better than either, especially for Fists. All those shots buffed by the skyfire stratagem look like really good news. The main thing stopping me from getting one is that storm hawks probably do the job better than any of these. The stalker works much better as an objective holder though.

I was looking at using my Leviathan for my Crimson Fists. It does seem like a pretty awesome unit, especially as a target for the Tank Hunters stratagem. But I have to consider whether it's actually better than three stalkers, which are cheaper than it is. They have so much more range.

Mandragola wrote:
Heavy incinerators remain total trash, even for Imperial Fists. Imperial Fists can take some kind of gun that is not trash instead if they want.

Suppressors have more range and don't explode. They're also significantly cheaper per model and have twice as many shots if you're firing at smaller targets. They seem reasonably good.

Stalkers might be better than either, especially for Fists. All those shots buffed by the skyfire stratagem look like really good news. The main thing stopping me from getting one is that storm hawks probably do the job better than any of these. The stalker works much better as an objective holder though.

I was looking at using my Leviathan for my Crimson Fists. It does seem like a pretty awesome unit, especially as a target for the Tank Hunters stratagem. But I have to consider whether it's actually better than three stalkers, which are cheaper than it is. They have so much more range.

I see people around here only favour units that are strictly better for the role with no thought about the rest. Maybe my place is in a more narrative oriented forum -_-
It's funny how I can show you with numbers an equivalent points value of Suppressors and Heavy Hellblasters can do the same damage to a certain (real, a Repulsor) vehicle profile, yet one is absolutely trash and the other get talked as reasonably good.
It's ok that you suggest Stalkers and Leviathans as substitutes. Everybody knows they are good and spam them in competitive lists.
I will give an opportunity to the Heavy Hellblasters and let you know (I don't know why, it sounds like I preach to a wall).
They fit a place in my battleplan (long ranged anti-tank infantry) that would be taken otherwise by Devastators (I don't do stunties anymore), Suppressors (stupid design) or Eliminators (I already have them, but as character killers).
If I see they disappoint me, they will go back to normal Hellblasters, no damage done or money spent

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

Gree wrote:
I'm thinking about running a Smash Captain for my Imperial Fists. I'm wondering if I should give him the Fist of Terra instead of a Thunder Hammer. It seems superior in every way except damage. Is the fixed 3 damage really that important for the build?

Yes. The flat three damage is massive. Even with the absurd point difference between a power fist and thunder hammer people will still pay that premium price to get the flat 3. If you are going all in on a one trick pony you have to make sure it's a darn good pony.

Flat 3 vs d3. Vs 2 wound models 33% of your wounds go wasted requiring 2 wounds past save to take. Vs 3 wounds 66% of your attacks takes at least 2 strikes past saves. Some of those 3.

And same for 4-6 wound models. Going from 2 strikes to potentially 4-6.

And while you can say averages out thing is you don't actually average out due to wound caps. vs 2 wound models rolling 3 damage doesnt' average rolling 1 wound. It's wasted(incidentally this is what I had been pointing out to another while talking about necron pylon vs doomsday ark. Average of 3 dda(about same price vs pylon) vs non-titanic T8 3+ is about same(slight advantage to dda's). But due to wound cap average damage output for dda is actually bigger and here most definitely good rolls don't average out bad rolls. When you do either 0, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and so on wounds and wound cap is 12 all those 14+ turn into 12 lowering average a lot)).

Flat 3 is big. It's reason why helverins are so good. There's so many W3 models out there(especially with marine codex 2).

The Dd3 vs multi wound infantry is almost like giving extra saving throw to your enemy(last night vs dark angels my necron destroyers got rid of 3 eliminators needing _5_ past saves. That's the annoying part of Dd3. I roll 1, one more was needed to finish and rolling here 3 would be useless. Yes damage=4=average 2 but that was irrelevant. I actually averaged to 1 damage per wound...)

Now where the Dd3 doesn't matter that much is vs model with tons of wounds. Knights, tanks etc. Basically when you are rolling lots of dice anyway and wound cap isn't going to become issue. Those 3's don't go to wasted and lots of dice=average out.

So the fist is better vs big vehicles, flat is better if your main target is going to be stuff like primaris marines, aggressors, custodians, light vehicles with about 6 wounds(though these aren't best targets for smash captain to begin with) etc.

DanielFM wrote:

Mandragola wrote:
Heavy incinerators remain total trash, even for Imperial Fists. Imperial Fists can take some kind of gun that is not trash instead if they want.

Suppressors have more range and don't explode. They're also significantly cheaper per model and have twice as many shots if you're firing at smaller targets. They seem reasonably good.

Stalkers might be better than either, especially for Fists. All those shots buffed by the skyfire stratagem look like really good news. The main thing stopping me from getting one is that storm hawks probably do the job better than any of these. The stalker works much better as an objective holder though.

I was looking at using my Leviathan for my Crimson Fists. It does seem like a pretty awesome unit, especially as a target for the Tank Hunters stratagem. But I have to consider whether it's actually better than three stalkers, which are cheaper than it is. They have so much more range.

I see people around here only favour units that are strictly better for the role with no thought about the rest. Maybe my place is in a more narrative oriented forum -_-
It's funny how I can show you with numbers an equivalent points value of Suppressors and Heavy Hellblasters can do the same damage to a certain (real, a Repulsor) vehicle profile, yet one is absolutely trash and the other get talked as reasonably good.
It's ok that you suggest Stalkers and Leviathans as substitutes. Everybody knows they are good and spam them in competitive lists.
I will give an opportunity to the Heavy Hellblasters and let you know (I don't know why, it sounds like I preach to a wall).
They fit a place in my battleplan (long ranged anti-tank infantry) that would be taken otherwise by Devastators (I don't do stunties anymore), Suppressors (stupid design) or Eliminators (I already have them, but as character killers).
If I see they disappoint me, they will go back to normal Hellblasters, no damage done or money spent

Couple of things, first off yes, dakka has a reputation for being a competitive forum and generally has competitive discussion, so if it’s not the best it usually is discussed as trash. Secondly the difference in a vacuum between suppressors and hellblasters, suppressors are far more versatile thanks to their native deepstrike and 12” movement. Counterintuitive design aside. Leviathans to the best of my knowledge are not spammed. Unless one in an uncommon iron hands list counts as spamming. And if so I guess those older space marines lists were spamming guilliman models. Next a lot of competitive philosophy revolves around mitigating risks. And hellblasters are risky. Risky isn’t necessarily a bad thing, if the reward is great enough. For example deepstriking chargers is incredibly risky however the benefits are huge, in that you probably murder the feth out whatever your target, disable shooting in the second but and make a gunline incredibly vulnerable and you make it incredibly awkward to actually kill those units. Huge risk, but huge payoff. Compare that to plasma where the risk is fairly significant, but the payoff isn’t nearly as good. On top of that the models are expensive. If they were the only option, or significantly cheaper, or even were significantly killier that would be a different story, but hellblasters as a whole are none ignored those things. They are expensive, slow, and pretty fragile on top of being risky. Next there’s the fact that for many of the rolls they perform they’re are better units. Manlets are cheaper, and have better weapons, Dreadnoughts are tougher and cheaper, and hit better with less risk, contemptors remain one of the best, most efficient ways to get long range anti tank. Centurions are excellent no matter what you point them at and if you really are married to the primaris ideal just run an executioner.

Hellblasters have been a noob trap dice they came out and have remained as such for the entire edition.

Those heavy Hellblasters end up being pretty worthless against everything that isn't a building or vehicle, and even when targeting those preferred units they still can't outdamage their cheaper, rapid fire counterpart except at max range. It's such a pity that this unit feels so bad on the table - those heavy incinerators are really cool models. They would have had a place if the heavy variant received the same adjustment to its stats as the bolt rifle variants had.

DanielFM wrote:
So, once again: what do you think of heavy plasma Hellblasters with IF superdoctrine. Do they look relatively competitive now?
For around the same price, they are significantly better than Lascannon Devastators with twice the wounds.
I know they are not 5 heavy bolters, which is the only thing that should be fielded as IF but they can benefit greatly from 2+ to hit with reroll 1s and Tank Hunters.
Their bane is invulnerable saves (there is always null zone) and they will be less useful once (if) you go to Tactical doctrine. Plus they won't be very good against monsters.
But, it's always nice to find some use for rare units.

I would argue that lascannons and hellblasters are both overcosted compared with missile launchers right now.

If you want long-range antitank, krak missiles will give you the same punch as lascannon/heavy hellblaster against everything except wounding T8, which you can offset by using tankhunters. The AP difference is insignificant in most cases (-2 or -3 is enough to get the invulnerable save to kick in on a knight), and the damage is the same and benefits from the IF doctrine in the same way.

And then, if you're up against an army with no vehicles, you can shoot frag missiles instead.

A unit of devs with 4 missile launchers is more points efficient than the lascannons or the hellblasters.

Don't forget frag missile for mortals vs aircraft. I personally have preferred missiles to las cannons since the 1st codex came out and they were the same cost. I prefer versatility over dedication with my devistators. With all the recent changes they have just gotten better at their job. 4d6 str 4 ap-1 d1 shots? Yeah that's not bad at dealing with infantry if you really need to.

The "versatility" is a false narrative. For the cost Frags are terrible and so are the Kraks. The actual offensive output is bad for either situation.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The "versatility" is a false narrative. For the cost Frags are terrible and so are the Kraks. The actual offensive output is bad for either situation.

What long-range antitank that's available to all space marines is better than krak missiles? I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning behind your claim, and also your alternative.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The "versatility" is a false narrative. For the cost Frags are terrible and so are the Kraks. The actual offensive output is bad for either situation.

What long-range antitank that's available to all space marines is better than krak missiles? I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning behind your claim, and also your alternative.

the heavy laser destroyer maybe? I still think though that our best long-range antitank is the quad las contemptor dreadnought

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The "versatility" is a false narrative. For the cost Frags are terrible and so are the Kraks. The actual offensive output is bad for either situation.

What long-range antitank that's available to all space marines is better than krak missiles? I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning behind your claim, and also your alternative.

Because they're mathematically worse? Especially with Imperial Fists when you can get 2 Heavy Bolters for the same price?

Lascannons aren't amazing, but the S9 makes a big difference vs T8 targets, and eliminating saves from something that doesn't have an Invul is clutch. Otherwise we can take Autocannons equivalents.

Also the ML is only readily available on Infantry platforms basically, so keep in mind you can likely get a Grav Cannon instead.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

What long-range antitank that's available to all space marines is better than krak missiles? I'm genuinely interested in the reasoning behind your claim, and also your alternative.

Quite literally all of them. Lascannons have the highly important S9, with AP4 in devastator. That's the gold standard of "traditional" AT there. Heavy bolters plinking at S5 AP2 D2 are going to dish out hurt, especially with wound reroll support. Ditto for plasma (though HPCs still suffer from RoF issues, and self-immolation). Grav cannons are wicked with the new strat, basically taking the aforementioned bonuses and cranking them up to fifteen on the obliterometer.

Take it from someone who regularly plays an army that can only utilize missiles, they're just not up to the job.

Saying that Imperial Fist Heavy Bolters are better anti-tank weapons is like saying that White Scars chainswords are better. It would be relavant if we were talking about what Imperial Fist weapons were the best for anti-tank.

The rest of the argument makes much more sense though.

bmsattler wrote:
Saying that Imperial Fist Heavy Bolters are better anti-tank weapons is like saying that White Scars chainswords are better. It would be relavant if we were talking about what Imperial Fist weapons were the best for anti-tank.

The rest of the argument makes much more sense though.

We *are* talking about IF heavy weapons.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

DanielFM wrote:
So, once again: what do you think of heavy plasma Hellblasters with IF superdoctrine.
<snip>

<snip>

Emphasis mine.

For IF and CF I think their best anti tank options are rate of fire heavy weapons becuase they will perform well enough against vehicles and very well against infantry hordes. They can build pure ROF and come out effective against everything.

Then I sincerely apologize!

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

DanielFM wrote:
So, once again: what do you think of heavy plasma Hellblasters with IF superdoctrine. Do they look relatively competitive now?
For around the same price, they are significantly better than Lascannon Devastators with twice the wounds.
I know they are not 5 heavy bolters, which is the only thing that should be fielded as IF but they can benefit greatly from 2+ to hit with reroll 1s and Tank Hunters.
Their bane is invulnerable saves (there is always null zone) and they will be less useful once (if) you go to Tactical doctrine. Plus they won't be very good against monsters.
But, it's always nice to find some use for rare units.

I would argue that lascannons and hellblasters are both overcosted compared with missile launchers right now.

If you want long-range antitank, krak missiles will give you the same punch as lascannon/heavy hellblaster against everything except wounding T8, which you can offset by using tankhunters. The AP difference is insignificant in most cases (-2 or -3 is enough to get the invulnerable save to kick in on a knight), and the damage is the same and benefits from the IF doctrine in the same way.

And then, if you're up against an army with no vehicles, you can shoot frag missiles instead.

A unit of devs with 4 missile launchers is more points efficient than the lascannons or the hellblasters.

No, you can't offset it with tank hunters. Missiles go to 3+ to wound, HPI/lascannon goes to 2+. They will always be better against heavy vehicles.

So is everyone just waiting to see what happens with salamanders until after the inevitable FAQ?

I'd love to get them working competitively (and by them I mean mono salamanders with 18 or so cents + aggressors combined) but I'm totally fine having a cent squad (and therefore a battalion) be white scars or raven guard. Can we still get there if self sacrifice can't target a character? Assuming that and not benefiting non-salamanders would be the only change at this point because that makes sense.