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.

I'd expect a serious FAQ, otherwise Supreme Command Detachment is mandatory

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

If you don’t lose any money, go ahead and test them. That’s fine.

Sorry if I come across badly. There are lots of units out there that don’t work. I don’t want to se GW rewarded for bad rules writing by you buying one of those units, then having to buy something else that isn’t awful.

To be clear though, they’re truly terrible. You’ve pointed out that they beat suppressors against T8 with no invulnerable save. Fair enough. Suppressors beat heavy hellblasters in literally all other situations. They’re also cheaper, faster, fly, and never blow themselves up. And suppressors aren’t even all that great.

Ok, just to bring some more value into my Heavy Hellblasters-as-antitank argument, I ran a spreadsheet with the most equivalent infantry anti-tank options with IF bennefits and no external buffs nor stratagems.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dFE2XmjL1l6Zk1Xd_hCwlfy2tpdWUhPtHS5H1Mf1V0/edit?usp=sharing
In orange you can see the winner/ties for each vehicle stat category.
Main conclussions:
-Plasma Cannon Devastators sure pull their own weight while being the second cheapest option in this comparison. IF super doctrine does a lot for them.
-Plasma Inceptors are their equal, with the added bonus of not losing damage outside Devastator Doctrine (do also note that advantage for regular Hellblasters).
-The ever-so-praised Suppressors only win against T7 with 5+ or 4+ invulnerable saves.
-Heavy Bolter Centurions are great against T8 5++ or 4++. The same happens with Grav Centurions and T8 3+ or 2+ with no invulnerable. They are the most expensive by a hefty 30+ points, though

I didn't account for range (Plasma Inceptors are short ranged but come from Deepstrike, Grav Cannons are short ranged but would also have the Hurricane Bolters which I didn't bother to get into the calculations ) nor overheating (in a single shooting phase, overheating has no effect on damage output). Several considerations must be taken into account, as accesibility of overheating mitigation, number of models to control backline objectives, effectivity of stratagem use (Suppressors lose here by being 2 different units, Grav Centurions get their own stratagem at the cost of 1 additional point).

I know all of this is pretty moot, as people will tell me Leviathans/Relic Contemptors/Stalkers are way better. But 1) those can't do their job while contributing to hold objectives 2) I'm fed up of FW units throwing actual 40k units off balance by making them look worse (if I had my way they would be forbidden or heavily limited -as already heppens in some Spanish tournaments) and 3) people wanting a bit of variety can check the numbers and make an informed decision about how much are they shooting themselves in the foot by taking their prefered unit.

btw is there any unit there that could seriously suffer from overkilling target? This is something I have been today number crunching with necrons when I wanted to determine just how good(or bad) necron pylon main gun is compared to dooms day arks. Simple formula(number of shots x odds of hitting x odds of wounding x odds of getting past saves x average damage) gave fairly similar results but due to overkill that's actually misleading. Factoring overkill for example pylon does about 19.36 vs baneblade while doomsday ark does 5.52. Simple formula says tad under 32 and 5.55

Incidentally vs leman russ doomsday ark averages 5.15...Odds of hitting and wounding are identical but average drops about 0.4 wound per doomsday round per round of shooting just because dda has not that insignificant chance of causing more than 12 wounds in one go. Pylon doesn't cause even double the dda vs leman russ in average...

I could see some bigger plasma squads etc actually having that to worry about dropping their real average a bit.

DanielFM wrote:
Ok, just to bring some more value into my Heavy Hellblasters-as-antitank argument, I ran a spreadsheet with the most equivalent infantry anti-tank options with IF bennefits and no external buffs nor stratagems.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dFE2XmjL1l6Zk1Xd_hCwlfy2tpdWUhPtHS5H1Mf1V0/edit?usp=sharing
In orange you can see the winner/ties for each vehicle stat category.
Main conclussions:
-Plasma Cannon Devastators sure pull their own weight while being the second cheapest option in this comparison. IF super doctrine does a lot for them.
-Plasma Inceptors are their equal, with the added bonus of not losing damage outside Devastator Doctrine (do also note that advantage for regular Hellblasters).
-The ever-so-praised Suppressors only win against T7 with 5+ or 4+ invulnerable saves.
-Heavy Bolter Centurions are great against T8 5++ or 4++. The same happens with Grav Centurions and T8 3+ or 2+ with no invulnerable. They are the most expensive by a hefty 30+ points, though

I didn't account for range (Plasma Inceptors are short ranged but come from Deepstrike, Grav Cannons are short ranged but would also have the Hurricane Bolters which I didn't bother to get into the calculations ) nor overheating (in a single shooting phase, overheating has no effect on damage output). Several considerations must be taken into account, as accesibility of overheating mitigation, number of models to control backline objectives, effectivity of stratagem use (Suppressors lose here by being 2 different units, Grav Centurions get their own stratagem at the cost of 1 additional point).

I know all of this is pretty moot, as people will tell me Leviathans/Relic Contemptors/Stalkers are way better. But 1) those can't do their job while contributing to hold objectives 2) I'm fed up of FW units throwing actual 40k units off balance by making them look worse (if I had my way they would be forbidden or heavily limited -as already heppens in some Spanish tournaments) and 3) people wanting a bit of variety can check the numbers and make an informed decision about how much are they shooting themselves in the foot by taking their prefered unit.

But those can hold objectives just fine?

Rakdarian wrote:

DanielFM wrote:
Ok, just to bring some more value into my Heavy Hellblasters-as-antitank argument, I ran a spreadsheet with the most equivalent infantry anti-tank options with IF bennefits and no external buffs nor stratagems.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dFE2XmjL1l6Zk1Xd_hCwlfy2tpdWUhPtHS5H1Mf1V0/edit?usp=sharing
In orange you can see the winner/ties for each vehicle stat category.
Main conclussions:
-Plasma Cannon Devastators sure pull their own weight while being the second cheapest option in this comparison. IF super doctrine does a lot for them.
-Plasma Inceptors are their equal, with the added bonus of not losing damage outside Devastator Doctrine (do also note that advantage for regular Hellblasters).
-The ever-so-praised Suppressors only win against T7 with 5+ or 4+ invulnerable saves.
-Heavy Bolter Centurions are great against T8 5++ or 4++. The same happens with Grav Centurions and T8 3+ or 2+ with no invulnerable. They are the most expensive by a hefty 30+ points, though

I didn't account for range (Plasma Inceptors are short ranged but come from Deepstrike, Grav Cannons are short ranged but would also have the Hurricane Bolters which I didn't bother to get into the calculations ) nor overheating (in a single shooting phase, overheating has no effect on damage output). Several considerations must be taken into account, as accesibility of overheating mitigation, number of models to control backline objectives, effectivity of stratagem use (Suppressors lose here by being 2 different units, Grav Centurions get their own stratagem at the cost of 1 additional point).

I know all of this is pretty moot, as people will tell me Leviathans/Relic Contemptors/Stalkers are way better. But 1) those can't do their job while contributing to hold objectives 2) I'm fed up of FW units throwing actual 40k units off balance by making them look worse (if I had my way they would be forbidden or heavily limited -as already heppens in some Spanish tournaments) and 3) people wanting a bit of variety can check the numbers and make an informed decision about how much are they shooting themselves in the foot by taking their prefered unit.

But those can hold objectives just fine?

Against what, 1 model? You need the numbers to be reliable. Also, being able to go up in buildings in case they are hidden inside/up.

DanielFM wrote:
Ok, just to bring some more value into my Heavy Hellblasters-as-antitank argument, I ran a spreadsheet with the most equivalent infantry anti-tank options with IF bennefits and no external buffs nor stratagems.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dFE2XmjL1l6Zk1Xd_hCwlfy2tpdWUhPtHS5H1Mf1V0/edit?usp=sharing
In orange you can see the winner/ties for each vehicle stat category.
Main conclussions:
-Plasma Cannon Devastators sure pull their own weight while being the second cheapest option in this comparison. IF super doctrine does a lot for them.
-Plasma Inceptors are their equal, with the added bonus of not losing damage outside Devastator Doctrine (do also note that advantage for regular Hellblasters).
-The ever-so-praised Suppressors only win against T7 with 5+ or 4+ invulnerable saves.
-Heavy Bolter Centurions are great against T8 5++ or 4++. The same happens with Grav Centurions and T8 3+ or 2+ with no invulnerable. They are the most expensive by a hefty 30+ points, though

I didn't account for range (Plasma Inceptors are short ranged but come from Deepstrike, Grav Cannons are short ranged but would also have the Hurricane Bolters which I didn't bother to get into the calculations ) nor overheating (in a single shooting phase, overheating has no effect on damage output). Several considerations must be taken into account, as accesibility of overheating mitigation, number of models to control backline objectives, effectivity of stratagem use (Suppressors lose here by being 2 different units, Grav Centurions get their own stratagem at the cost of 1 additional point).

I know all of this is pretty moot, as people will tell me Leviathans/Relic Contemptors/Stalkers are way better. But 1) those can't do their job while contributing to hold objectives 2) I'm fed up of FW units throwing actual 40k units off balance by making them look worse (if I had my way they would be forbidden or heavily limited -as already heppens in some Spanish tournaments) and 3) people wanting a bit of variety can check the numbers and make an informed decision about how much are they shooting themselves in the foot by taking their prefered unit.

I don't think we've figured out what the best units are yet. There are a lot of factors at work here - many of them not revealed by maths.

I don't think Suppressors are a particularly awesome unit. They're ok. I think they make a good pick for a brigade where you want a cheap-ish fast attack unit that will accomplish something. They come out of this comparison poorly because you've got no targets <T7, so they're always wounding on at least a 4+. Even so they look ok I think. Relative to the others, it's notable that they're one of the cheapest models. They're quick and can deep strike if they want.

Ignoring overheating is not really reasonable in my opinion. It happens a lot, particularly to units like plasma inceptors. There are ways around it though, like if you're Crimson Fists and use the +1 to hit characters strat to target a knight. Failing that, they really want a captain nearby. Blowing up is a huge problem when targets have penalties to hit.

I did some sums of my own not long ago, looking at weapon options for Devastators. I went for a slightly more varied list of targets because I wanted to see how they'd do in less ideal scenarios. The plasma devastators came out pretty well in that situation too. Note I'm giving captain and lieutenant rerolls here. I think that's a reasonable assumption for these relatively static units.



I think the best weapons for Fists will be those that fire a decent number of shots with a decent chance to wound. Multi-shot plasma fits that description, but it's pretty rare. So Plasma devastators, as the only unit able to really spam heavy plasma cannons, come out looking very respectable. But so do most autocannon-type weapons. Things like heavy bolters and assault cannons are also good - their lower chance to wound and initial 1 damage being offset by having lots of shots and the IF super doctrine. They fall a bit flat against targets like riptides (and other monsters) which are tough but not vehicles.

I don't know if a Leviathan is a must take for Fists - probably not. But it has a very major virtue, shared with devastator centurions, which is that it's an awesome target for the Tank Hunters stratagem. Usually my instinct is to go for quite a bit of MSU fir my shooting units but the option to give those 20 storm cannon shots +1 to wound is hard to pass up - the thing (with captain and LT) averages 17 damage against a knight with rotated ion shields, or just kills it outright if it doesn't rotate.>

Mandragola wrote:

DanielFM wrote:
Ok, just to bring some more value into my Heavy Hellblasters-as-antitank argument, I ran a spreadsheet with the most equivalent infantry anti-tank options with IF bennefits and no external buffs nor stratagems.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dFE2XmjL1l6Zk1Xd_hCwlfy2tpdWUhPtHS5H1Mf1V0/edit?usp=sharing
In orange you can see the winner/ties for each vehicle stat category.
Main conclussions:
-Plasma Cannon Devastators sure pull their own weight while being the second cheapest option in this comparison. IF super doctrine does a lot for them.
-Plasma Inceptors are their equal, with the added bonus of not losing damage outside Devastator Doctrine (do also note that advantage for regular Hellblasters).
-The ever-so-praised Suppressors only win against T7 with 5+ or 4+ invulnerable saves.
-Heavy Bolter Centurions are great against T8 5++ or 4++. The same happens with Grav Centurions and T8 3+ or 2+ with no invulnerable. They are the most expensive by a hefty 30+ points, though

I didn't account for range (Plasma Inceptors are short ranged but come from Deepstrike, Grav Cannons are short ranged but would also have the Hurricane Bolters which I didn't bother to get into the calculations ) nor overheating (in a single shooting phase, overheating has no effect on damage output). Several considerations must be taken into account, as accesibility of overheating mitigation, number of models to control backline objectives, effectivity of stratagem use (Suppressors lose here by being 2 different units, Grav Centurions get their own stratagem at the cost of 1 additional point).

I know all of this is pretty moot, as people will tell me Leviathans/Relic Contemptors/Stalkers are way better. But 1) those can't do their job while contributing to hold objectives 2) I'm fed up of FW units throwing actual 40k units off balance by making them look worse (if I had my way they would be forbidden or heavily limited -as already heppens in some Spanish tournaments) and 3) people wanting a bit of variety can check the numbers and make an informed decision about how much are they shooting themselves in the foot by taking their prefered unit.

I don't think we've figured out what the best units are yet. There are a lot of factors at work here - many of them not revealed by maths.

I don't think Suppressors are a particularly awesome unit. They're ok. I think they make a good pick for a brigade where you want a cheap-ish fast attack unit that will accomplish something. They come out of this comparison poorly because you've got no targets <T7, so they're always wounding on at least a 4+. Even so they look ok I think. Relative to the others, it's notable that they're one of the cheapest models. They're quick and can deep strike if they want.

Ignoring overheating is not really reasonable in my opinion. It happens a lot, particularly to units like plasma inceptors. There are ways around it though, like if you're Crimson Fists and use the +1 to hit characters strat to target a knight. Failing that, they really want a captain nearby. Blowing up is a huge problem when targets have penalties to hit.

I did some sums of my own not long ago, looking at weapon options for Devastators. I went for a slightly more varied list of targets because I wanted to see how they'd do in less ideal scenarios. The plasma devastators came out pretty well in that situation too. Note I'm giving captain and lieutenant rerolls here. I think that's a reasonable assumption for these relatively static units.



I think the best weapons for Fists will be those that fire a decent number of shots with a decent chance to wound. Multi-shot plasma fits that description, but it's pretty rare. So Plasma devastators, as the only unit able to really spam heavy plasma cannons, come out looking very respectable. But so do most autocannon-type weapons. Things like heavy bolters and assault cannons are also good - their lower chance to wound and initial 1 damage being offset by having lots of shots and the IF super doctrine. They fall a bit flat against targets like riptides (and other monsters) which are tough but not vehicles.

I don't know if a Leviathan is a must take for Fists - probably not. But it has a very major virtue, shared with devastator centurions, which is that it's an awesome target for the Tank Hunters stratagem. Usually my instinct is to go for quite a bit of MSU fir my shooting units but the option to give those 20 storm cannon shots +1 to wound is hard to pass up - the thing (with captain and LT) averages 17 damage against a knight with rotated ion shields, or just kills it outright if it doesn't rotate.>

Why the deredeo off all the options? As far as choices go that seems really
Odd.

It does, I agree. This came out of a discussion over on B+C about which gun was more effective for devastators. I put the Deredeo in sort of as a control to look at whether devastators compared well to other stuff generally.

For what it's worth I think Fist Deredeos are pretty good. I had a theory that they'd achieve consistent damage against a lot of targets, and they do. In this comparison I've left the missiles off the roof because I think they're overcosted and you're likely to take the shield instead.

The Hellfire Palsma Carronade is probably worth considering too, which I didn't. 24" range is a major problem compared to the autocannons though, and the AP isn't necessarily all that relevant with so many invulnerables around. Overall I think the autocannons are still the best choice.

Ironically, I think IFs needs a unit that works well against monsters in case there is no vehicles, and there the Hellblasters/Plasma Inceptors could find their role.
Because with pure high ROF low strength weapons you will accomplish little in that scenario.
Thus, I think it's wise to leave some points for a dedicated monster killer who can also help with anti-tank (even if suboptimally).
I may rerun the numbers later without the +1 to damage, and maybe add the usual captain+lieutenant/Hypnoth buffs for more realistic numbers (and to add the overheating protection).

Thank you, DanielFM, for the spreadsheet. Ironically, I think the numbers, for me, actually reinforce my commitment to krak missiles.

Kraks are middle-of-the-road against everything. They don't suffer from the randomness or overheats of plasma, or the efficiency waste of lascannons when there are no hard targets. In a world of repulsors, I don't consider 24" grav cannons to be long range.

I should mention, though, that I'm playing Raven Guard, so infantry-based weapons that stand off at range are more survivable for me than vehicle based (although typhoons are a bit of a bargain) or one-shot 24" range weapons.

It's beyond my math skill, but I'd be interested to see the point cost-per-damage spreadsheet, with the plasma weapons including the cost of the captain/chapter master who is required to make them work safely throughout a game. Or alternately, the points cost-per-damage over the course of a 6-turn game, with unsupported plasmas dropping out at expected rates.

No argument, though, that twin lascannons--at the same cost as missiles--are clearly a long-range antitank bargain.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

It's beyond my math skill, but I'd be interested to see the point cost-per-damage spreadsheet, with the plasma weapons including the cost of the captain/chapter master who is required to make them work safely throughout a game. Or alternately, the points cost-per-damage over the course of a 6-turn game, with unsupported plasmas dropping out at expected rates.

Nope, sorry. I can't agree here.
You are taking the Captain for everyone, as everyone benefits from one. If I include, I include it for everyone. Yes, plasma benefit more from the rerolls (avoidance of overheat) but they are not paying more points for it because of that.
The chance of overheating with reroll ones is 0.028 per shot. Each model must shoot 36 times before it's expected to die from it (on average). With a -1 to hit, its 5 times. But with a chapter master, it's 9.
I think that's visual enough.

Well I like plasma cannons, and I've used them in RG to pop up and shoot. I like the lower cost overall. But their shorter range and the way that people have bad 5th edition memories of them means they never get off more than a couple of shots before they either toast themselves or get overrun.

Anecdotally, it always seems that I have at least three or four devs with missile launchers sitting in a ruin somewhere still thumping away in turn six.

And instead you could've gotten Lascannons instead for just 20 points more.

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Anecdotally, it always seems that I have at least three or four devs with missile launchers sitting in a ruin somewhere still thumping away in turn six.

If an opponent leaves a devastator team alone for six turns, theyve got bigger issues than mathematical heavy weapons arguments.

DanielFM wrote:
Ironically, I think IFs needs a unit that works well against monsters in case there is no vehicles, and there the Hellblasters/Plasma Inceptors could find their role.
Because with pure high ROF low strength weapons you will accomplish little in that scenario.
Thus, I think it's wise to leave some points for a dedicated monster killer who can also help with anti-tank (even if suboptimally).
I may rerun the numbers later without the +1 to damage, and maybe add the usual captain+lieutenant/Hypnoth buffs for more realistic numbers (and to add the overheating protection).

Heavy bolters work just fine against monsters. Assault cannons too. The majority of monsters are daemons/hive tyrants too and those have a prevalence to have 4++ saves - making the HB better for killing it anyways. Plasma cannons are garbage because -1 to hit exist. You should include 0 in your army that aren't part of a suicide unit. The only common place monster you might run into with an invo save is a carnifex...They only have 8 wounds anyways.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Anecdotally, it always seems that I have at least three or four devs with missile launchers sitting in a ruin somewhere still thumping away in turn six.

If an opponent leaves a devastator team alone for six turns, theyve got bigger issues than mathematical heavy weapons arguments.

In the case of Raven Guard, the bigger issue that causes my opponent not to shoot at devastators is created by me (if I'm using my army right) with deepstriking, flying, infiltrating and tricksy harassment units up in his grill that he can't ignore.

Thus the need for reliable, cheap and consistent backfield firepower that's not going to roast themselves.

Updated with values against monters and damage per point.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10dFE2XmjL1l6Zk1Xd_hCwlfy2tpdWUhPtHS5H1Mf1V0/edit?usp=sharing
As expected, against tanks Plasma Cannon Devs dominate even more. Against monsters, Plasma Inceptors win by a mile, with Plasma Devs and Hellblasters coming second and being really similar.

Xenomancer, -1 to hit exist, but it's not everywhere (and it´s very likely to become even more rare when all -1 to hit blanket rules get standarized with Raven Guard's one). It's mainly on flyers and infantry, and none of those are the objective of this unit (nor this analysis).
I will add high ROF units in my monster analysis later, to see if they are effective enough to make anti-monster not needed. I already included a good source of Heavy Bolter shots (HB Centurions) and they are not exactly stellar in the comparison. I didn't add the hurricane bolters, though. But I don't expect them to skyrocket their damage against high T monsters. Plus the range is short.

Edit: most important Monster armies are Daemons, Tyranids but also Tau. Don't forget about Riptides. T7 2+ 5++/3++. I must remember adding that profile to the calculations.

DanielFM wrote:

Xenomancer, -1 to hit exist, but it's not everywhere (and it´s very likely to become even more rare when all -1 to hit blanket rules get standarized with Raven Guard's one). It's mainly on flyers and infantry, and none of those are the objective of this unit (nor this analysis).
I will add high ROF units in my monster analysis later, to see if they are effective enough to make anti-monster not needed.

-1 to hit rules are explicitly not being standardized to Corax Pattern Shenanigans. Alaitoc already got its PA update, and is untouched.

Sterling191 wrote:

DanielFM wrote:

Xenomancer, -1 to hit exist, but it's not everywhere (and it´s very likely to become even more rare when all -1 to hit blanket rules get standarized with Raven Guard's one). It's mainly on flyers and infantry, and none of those are the objective of this unit (nor this analysis).
I will add high ROF units in my monster analysis later, to see if they are effective enough to make anti-monster not needed.

-1 to hit rules are explicitly not being standardized to Corax Pattern Shenanigans. Alaitoc already got its PA update, and is untouched.

That's some serious bs by GW, then. One of the most broken mechanics in the game and they leave it untouched while toning it down for a single army. Great job guys.

DanielFM wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

DanielFM wrote:

Xenomancer, -1 to hit exist, but it's not everywhere (and it´s very likely to become even more rare when all -1 to hit blanket rules get standarized with Raven Guard's one). It's mainly on flyers and infantry, and none of those are the objective of this unit (nor this analysis).
I will add high ROF units in my monster analysis later, to see if they are effective enough to make anti-monster not needed.

-1 to hit rules are explicitly not being standardized to Corax Pattern Shenanigans. Alaitoc already got its PA update, and is untouched.

That's some serious bs by GW, then. One of the most broken mechanics in the game and they leave it untouched while toning it down for a single army. Great job guys.

All the base traits for eldar factions went untouched, they just got their own version of successor traits.

 Xenomancers wrote:

DanielFM wrote:
Ironically, I think IFs needs a unit that works well against monsters in case there is no vehicles, and there the Hellblasters/Plasma Inceptors could find their role.
Because with pure high ROF low strength weapons you will accomplish little in that scenario.
Thus, I think it's wise to leave some points for a dedicated monster killer who can also help with anti-tank (even if suboptimally).
I may rerun the numbers later without the +1 to damage, and maybe add the usual captain+lieutenant/Hypnoth buffs for more realistic numbers (and to add the overheating protection).

Heavy bolters work just fine against monsters. Assault cannons too. The majority of monsters are daemons/hive tyrants too and those have a prevalence to have 4++ saves - making the HB better for killing it anyways. Plasma cannons are garbage because -1 to hit exist. You should include 0 in your army that aren't part of a suicide unit. The only common place monster you might run into with an invo save is a carnifex...They only have 8 wounds anyways.

Without running a complete spreadsheet: you need 108 heavy bolter/assault cannon shots to kill a winged Hive Tyrant. You only need 27 plasma shots to do the same. Obviously, not a single source (neither the HB nor the plasma) will take it down on their own, at least soon enough. That's why you need both, the big guns take a good chunk and the HB-or-equivalent plink out the rest of the wounds.
I don't know how many Hive Tyrant grade monsters do you routinely kill with high ROF weapons alone, but at least in paper numbers are against it.

DanielFM wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

DanielFM wrote:
Ironically, I think IFs needs a unit that works well against monsters in case there is no vehicles, and there the Hellblasters/Plasma Inceptors could find their role.
Because with pure high ROF low strength weapons you will accomplish little in that scenario.
Thus, I think it's wise to leave some points for a dedicated monster killer who can also help with anti-tank (even if suboptimally).
I may rerun the numbers later without the +1 to damage, and maybe add the usual captain+lieutenant/Hypnoth buffs for more realistic numbers (and to add the overheating protection).

Heavy bolters work just fine against monsters. Assault cannons too. The majority of monsters are daemons/hive tyrants too and those have a prevalence to have 4++ saves - making the HB better for killing it anyways. Plasma cannons are garbage because -1 to hit exist. You should include 0 in your army that aren't part of a suicide unit. The only common place monster you might run into with an invo save is a carnifex...They only have 8 wounds anyways.

Without running a complete spreadsheet: you need 108 heavy bolter/assault cannon shots to kill a winged Hive Tyrant. You only need 27 plasma shots to do the same. Obviously, not a single source (neither the HB nor the plasma) will take it down on their own, at least soon enough. That's why you need both, the big guns take a good chunk and the HB-or-equivalent plink out the rest of the wounds.
I don't know how many Hive Tyrant grade monsters do you routinely kill with high ROF weapons alone, but at least in paper numbers are against it.

Aren't Tyrants T6? If so the Assault Cannon number should be slightly lower.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

DanielFM wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

DanielFM wrote:
Ironically, I think IFs needs a unit that works well against monsters in case there is no vehicles, and there the Hellblasters/Plasma Inceptors could find their role.
Because with pure high ROF low strength weapons you will accomplish little in that scenario.
Thus, I think it's wise to leave some points for a dedicated monster killer who can also help with anti-tank (even if suboptimally).
I may rerun the numbers later without the +1 to damage, and maybe add the usual captain+lieutenant/Hypnoth buffs for more realistic numbers (and to add the overheating protection).

Heavy bolters work just fine against monsters. Assault cannons too. The majority of monsters are daemons/hive tyrants too and those have a prevalence to have 4++ saves - making the HB better for killing it anyways. Plasma cannons are garbage because -1 to hit exist. You should include 0 in your army that aren't part of a suicide unit. The only common place monster you might run into with an invo save is a carnifex...They only have 8 wounds anyways.

Without running a complete spreadsheet: you need 108 heavy bolter/assault cannon shots to kill a winged Hive Tyrant. You only need 27 plasma shots to do the same. Obviously, not a single source (neither the HB nor the plasma) will take it down on their own, at least soon enough. That's why you need both, the big guns take a good chunk and the HB-or-equivalent plink out the rest of the wounds.
I don't know how many Hive Tyrant grade monsters do you routinely kill with high ROF weapons alone, but at least in paper numbers are against it.

Aren't Tyrants T6? If so the Assault Cannon number should be slightly lower.

They are T7. The monsters that are t6 usually have character protection (demon princes), so heavy bolters/assault cannons are pretty crap against them.

That still isn't exactly a ton of shots to bring one down though. Most people are bringing TL Assault Cannons, not to mention all our Bolters will wound at the same rate under the Tactical Doctrine (or at the same rate for units already being brought like Intercessor variants).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That still isn't exactly a ton of shots to bring one down though. Most people are bringing TL Assault Cannons, not to mention all our Bolters will wound at the same rate under the Tactical Doctrine (or at the same rate for units already being brought like Intercessor variants).

It isn't efficient at all though. Plasma and other heavy weapons (squad of devs with grav-cannons using the strat for instance) will drop these targets much faster than heavy bolters and assault cannons will. Which is the point.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Anecdotally, it always seems that I have at least three or four devs with missile launchers sitting in a ruin somewhere still thumping away in turn six.

If an opponent leaves a devastator team alone for six turns, theyve got bigger issues than mathematical heavy weapons arguments.

Naw. An opponent swimming in infantry will just ignore a lascannon heavy version, for instance. What's it going to do? Zap a single 'stealer?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DanielFM wrote:

I will add high ROF units in my monster analysis later, to see if they are effective enough to make anti-monster not needed. I already included a good source of Heavy Bolter shots (HB Centurions) and they are not exactly stellar in the comparison. I didn't add the hurricane bolters, though. But I don't expect them to skyrocket their damage against high T monsters. Plus the range is short.

Very biased position on the range considering two of your weapons in this list have shorter range for the damage shown (regular Hellblasters and Inceptors) and one has the exact same range (Grav Devs).

Furthermore, Bolter Discipline applies all the time for units with the CENTURION keyword, so it's even smarter to consider it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Khornatedemon wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
I am thinking of getting a Relic Deredeo as a centre piece for my army with its 5++ aura to give my IH airwing some early protection. With ironstone and duty eternal its only marginally weaker than a leviathan when it gets shot. Worthy idea?

I feel like the planes need that invul against a shooting army otherwise they are pretty fragile. I have seen a few lists run without it so I dont have any practical experience yet.

I may be wrong but I believe the deredeo invul you have to be fully within 6" to get it so it probably wont be able to cover many planes.

That being said I'm really interested in them in IF. Making the autocannons dmg 3 is very nice and you can protect a key unit or 2 with the invul.

You know what fits in their aura fully? 3 Ven Gun Dreads. I did that and it was buckets of fun.

What load out on all the Dreads? I have 3 ven's and was thing of getting a deredeo

Wouldnt you use run las and missile load outs?

Lemondish wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

 Flavius Infernus wrote:

Anecdotally, it always seems that I have at least three or four devs with missile launchers sitting in a ruin somewhere still thumping away in turn six.

If an opponent leaves a devastator team alone for six turns, theyve got bigger issues than mathematical heavy weapons arguments.

Naw. An opponent swimming in infantry will just ignore a lascannon heavy version, for instance. What's it going to do? Zap a single 'stealer?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DanielFM wrote:

I will add high ROF units in my monster analysis later, to see if they are effective enough to make anti-monster not needed. I already included a good source of Heavy Bolter shots (HB Centurions) and they are not exactly stellar in the comparison. I didn't add the hurricane bolters, though. But I don't expect them to skyrocket their damage against high T monsters. Plus the range is short.

Very biased position on the range considering two of your weapons in this list have shorter range for the damage shown (regular Hellblasters and Inceptors) and one has the exact same range (Grav Devs).

Furthermore, Bolter Discipline applies all the time for units with the CENTURION keyword, so it's even smarter to consider it.

I'm sorry, you are right. I forgot about that because Hellblasters and Inceptors got good delivery options kind of bypassing their range issue. I will add the hurricane bolters.