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 keep spouting double damage, but unless we're talking the move from D1 to D2, it just isn't true. And even then it only averages maybe 1 more wound on average.

And LOS means indirect fire, or staying out of LoS so you have to move closer and they can weather your first turn unscathed. Do you not play or something?

Not a lot of those -1 to hit are on vehicles, but it's a fair point. That's why I'd only take some plasma. I'd also take Suppressors and probably a Repulsor Executioner too.

I don't put all my eggs in one basket.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
and Raven Guard I've been testing and found to be pretty broken as well.

Raven Guard one is super situationally broken, IMO.

There's a few instances where that bonus to ganking characters can be crazy in Tactical Doctrine...but it requires someone to actively build for it in a way that can detract from their effectiveness at literally anything else.

I dunno. Eliminators are damn cheap. Seems easy enough to slide them in. Most seem to take max squads of them.

Yea three squads are a little over 10% of your list. Which still gives you plenty of pts to spend on other things. Overall I found the bonus against characters to be really good on the table. Characters models are often models I want dead anyway so having the bonus helps. Is not just eliminators either, things like invictors become excellent assassins in melee with their fists, and even intercessors are deadly to most characters with their AP -2 bolt rifles.

On another note I also found that being able to kill characters really helps a lot in maelstrom of war missions, which are rather popular locally.

Also assault centurions plus chaplain with master of ambush is just plain brutal.

Edit:

 Smirrors wrote:
Ravenguard will potentially do quite well against IF.

It will depend heavily on who gets first turn I think.

You can hide 2 eliminator squads inside an impulsor. Then drop them into position next to a reroll all hits aura. Or wait till you turn to tactical doctrine and get out and hit as normal with a +1 to hit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You keep spouting double damage, but unless we're talking the move from D1 to D2, it just isn't true. And even then it only averages maybe 1 more wound on average.

And LOS means indirect fire, or staying out of LoS so you have to move closer and they can weather your first turn unscathed. Do you not play or something?

Not a lot of those -1 to hit are on vehicles, but it's a fair point. That's why I'd only take some plasma. I'd also take Suppressors and probably a Repulsor Executioner too.

I don't put all my eggs in one basket.

It's going to be double damage. There is not reason not to maximize your number of shots with the current IF doctrine. You might not do it yourself because your aren't min maxing but tournament cheese lists will. Just wait too...We don't even know what kind of absurd stratagem combos IF are gonna have.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
and Raven Guard I've been testing and found to be pretty broken as well.

Raven Guard one is super situationally broken, IMO.

There's a few instances where that bonus to ganking characters can be crazy in Tactical Doctrine...but it requires someone to actively build for it in a way that can detract from their effectiveness at literally anything else.

I dunno. Eliminators are damn cheap. Seems easy enough to slide them in. Most seem to take max squads of them.

Yea three squads are a little over 10% of your list. Which still gives you plenty of pts to spend on other things. Overall I found the bonus against characters to be really good on the table. Characters models are often models I want dead anyway so having the bonus helps. Is not just eliminators either, things like invictors become excellent assassins in melee with their fists, and even intercessors are deadly to most characters with their AP -2 bolt rifles.

On another note I also found that being able to kill characters really helps a lot in maelstrom of war missions, which are rather popular locally.

Also assault centurions plus chaplain with master of ambush is just plain brutal.

Edit:

 Smirrors wrote:
Ravenguard will potentially do quite well against IF.

It will depend heavily on who gets first turn I think.

You can hide 2 eliminator squads inside an impulsor. Then drop them into position next to a reroll all hits aura. Or wait till you turn to tactical doctrine and get out and hit as normal with a +1 to hit.

Or just use the strike from the shadows strat and put them in reserve and arrive on turn two. The bonus to hit cancels out the heavy penalty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You keep spouting double damage, but unless we're talking the move from D1 to D2, it just isn't true. And even then it only averages maybe 1 more wound on average.

And LOS means indirect fire, or staying out of LoS so you have to move closer and they can weather your first turn unscathed. Do you not play or something?

Not a lot of those -1 to hit are on vehicles, but it's a fair point. That's why I'd only take some plasma. I'd also take Suppressors and probably a Repulsor Executioner too.

I don't put all my eggs in one basket.

It's going to be double damage. There is not reason not to maximize your number of shots with the current IF doctrine. You might not do it yourself because your aren't min maxing but tournament cheese lists will.

There is good reason not to. Monsters aren't affected.

Ice_can wrote:


Your using them as a MSU dev squad ie the fastest way to loose them.

I'm talking about adding a heavy weapon to an MSU tac squad the marines already payed for 's purely the weapon that's being added.

But that aside the balance for IF being able to go heavy into anti horde and still wreck armour will be a balance problem.

They can take the same list vrs a guard horde, gsc list as against Choas knights and disco lord spam.

It no longer about balancing the anti horde vrs anti TEQ (as they tend to be better at anti tank than anti tank weapons), it's cram in as much anti horde as you can and it'll destroy the opposite squew list without a problem anyways. If don't have to go TAC they can squew hard inti horde clearing and still be TAC and better than other armies anti armour spam lists, without the autoloose horde march up.

It doesn't matter much what models as long as it is apples to apples.

On it's own an MSU squad with a HB is pretty inconsequential. So are 3 such squads. Sure, the HBs are more versatile and reliable, but I find its hardly to the point where HBs/Asscans/etc are the only weapons you should take.

I understand the dynamic of have an army with solid anti-horde that can tackle tanks, too, but I don't foresee it working out perfectly.

3 tfc ~ 32(24+strat) bs 2 str5 ap2 ignores cover shots. 3 devastator squads ~ 47(bs 2 on some + exploding 6 is about the same as 11 more shots) bs 3 str5 ap 2 ignores cover. That is just short of 600pts of anti infantry units and without character rerolls they do ~ 25 damage to t8 3+/5++ profile. Thats almost 2 non LoW vehicles.

A single HB is crappy anti tank even with IF. But try spending 600pts on anti tank and anti horde, which ~ 80 str 5 ap2 ignores cover shot is excellent against, that can do better or equal than what IF can do against both. You can get either equal or bettet anti tank or anti infantry but not both unless you are IF. The ultimate TAC while skewing their whole list and they can counter other skew lists in the meta. Only monster spam they dont counter for free but its not like heavy bolters are worthless against them anyway.

IF heavy bolters even care less about negative to hit modifiers than other heavy weapons if you have CM rerolls close by since the extra hits from their CT compensate quite well the misses. Same with overwatching close to a CM. Its like they have OW on 5+ on bolters since 6s give 2 hits. Here (heavy) bolters really beats plasma cannons.

And you still have like 1400pts of other units to fill out your list. I would still take a smash captain for backup and a few units that can hit hard in melee. I would just not take any that need me to change doctrine. Hard to build a list with 3+ whirlwinds/tfc that benefits from going from devastator to tactical doctrine unless you load up on tons of intercessors with rf/assault bolters. And ofc they are good with IF CT but then you play with either your CT or your super doctrine when you could do both without any real downsides.

The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

They really weren't a staple this edition ever. They were just the decent of a bad situation.

They're simply just good now. Super Doctrines are the problem which people seem to be forgetting as usual.

They punish certain lists and units, yes. They also do little damage and require CP each turn. I don't think they need fixing.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

non-LOS shooting in general needs an adjustment tbh. I can't think of a faction that has access to it that doesn't use it extensively in competitive lists.

The leviathan dread with double stormcannons as IF will be insanely good as well.

 DominayTrix wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

non-LOS shooting in general needs an adjustment tbh. I can't think of a faction that has access to it that doesn't use it extensively in competitive lists.

And some of it just needs to be reworked period. I've been saying for awhile that Guard need to lose some of the Heavy Weapon Team options that feature in the Guard Squads, with Mortars being restricted to their own teams.

I've also been wondering if the bit for the Bolt Sniper Rifles' "ignore line of sight" rounds where it says you get a +1 to hit rolls is trying to suggest/imply that instead of hitting on a 3+, you're supposed to hit on a 4+. It would be a benefit(ignore LOS) while having a downside(degrading your shot performance).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

Just remove the slow units down stratagem. The TFC is like 3 ignore LOS HB...You must really hate wyverns...

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

Just remove the slow units down stratagem. The TFC is like 3 ignore LOS HB...You must really hate wyverns...

To be fair. Its easier to hide a TFC and it has BS2 and 12" more range. It also has ap2 for at least one turn which means its a threat against units in cover. A wyvern does barely anything against marines, especially in cover or units with negative to hit modifiers. Wyvern is better against boys or other units with bad saves but I dont think it is close to as good as the TFC.

In IH and IF the TFC is even extra nasty. 2+ with reroll to hit as IH or ignore cover and able to threaten tanks as IF. Much stronger than a wyvern.

Klickor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

Just remove the slow units down stratagem. The TFC is like 3 ignore LOS HB...You must really hate wyverns...

To be fair. Its easier to hide a TFC and it has BS2 and 12" more range. It also has ap2 for at least one turn which means its a threat against units in cover. A wyvern does barely anything against marines, especially in cover or units with negative to hit modifiers. Wyvern is better against boys or other units with bad saves but I dont think it is close to as good as the TFC.

In IH and IF the TFC is even extra nasty. 2+ with reroll to hit as IH or ignore cover and able to threaten tanks as IF. Much stronger than a wyvern.

TFC is more versatile. The wyvern can also shoot twice and reroll all hits and wounds and can also get ap-1 on 6's. It's getting more than double the wounds on a target with that combo. It was a staple in every guard list for about a year. The TFC is also good but it is much less durable/ requires to be out of LOS to shoot twice. It's def not a better choice. reroll wounds is better than str 5.

How do you get full rerolls to hit though? To shoot twice you need extra support from a detachment and a character with a relic close by. Getting ap1 on 6s doesnt do much at all. It does wound a bit better that is true but it costs more in both points and CP and you quickly run into dimishing returns on the unit due to how narrow it is targeting. It is slightly more durable but it is also larger and dont come with a free techmarine.

Thought it was just the shoot out of LOS weapon that could double shoot and not that it had to be out of LOS.

I have played with wyverns myself since I needed artillery but I would rather bring in a Space marine detachment for it than a guard one. Too bad I lose the doctrines since BA dont get them smh.

Wyvern isnt bad but the TFC is just better. Especially the more marines there are in the meta. The more marines the better the TFC gets compared to the wyvern. That extra ap is important. Like I could still run 1 wyvern but never 3. If I had 3 TFC I would run them all the time though.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Klickor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

Just remove the slow units down stratagem. The TFC is like 3 ignore LOS HB...You must really hate wyverns...

To be fair. Its easier to hide a TFC and it has BS2 and 12" more range. It also has ap2 for at least one turn which means its a threat against units in cover. A wyvern does barely anything against marines, especially in cover or units with negative to hit modifiers. Wyvern is better against boys or other units with bad saves but I dont think it is close to as good as the TFC.

In IH and IF the TFC is even extra nasty. 2+ with reroll to hit as IH or ignore cover and able to threaten tanks as IF. Much stronger than a wyvern.

TFC is more versatile. The wyvern can also shoot twice and reroll all hits and wounds and can also get ap-1 on 6's. It's getting more than double the wounds on a target with that combo. It was a staple in every guard list for about a year. The TFC is also good but it is much less durable/ requires to be out of LOS to shoot twice. It's def not a better choice. reroll wounds is better than str 5.

The TFC strat doesn't require it to be out of LOS? It needs to fire weapons that ignore LOS.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

Maybe a bit in points. OOLOS weapons need -1 to hit when they can't see the target in my opinion.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

Maybe a bit in points. OOLOS weapons need -1 to hit when they can't see the target in my opinion.

The points difference is because kill the gunner and the TFC dies automatically 4W T4 Sv2+ isn't that hard to kill compaired to a wyvern.

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

Maybe a bit in points. OOLOS weapons need -1 to hit when they can't see the target in my opinion.

The points difference is because kill the gunner and the TFC dies automatically 4W T4 Sv2+ isn't that hard to kill compaired to a wyvern.

He is harder to kill than the gun itself since he is a character. A character that can stay way back and dont need LOS for anything. If he dies before the gun then I get surprised

Klickor wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

Maybe a bit in points. OOLOS weapons need -1 to hit when they can't see the target in my opinion.

The points difference is because kill the gunner and the TFC dies automatically 4W T4 Sv2+ isn't that hard to kill compaired to a wyvern.

He is harder to kill than the gun itself since he is a character. A character that can stay way back and dont need LOS for anything. If he dies before the gun then I get surprised

Seen it done 1 with targeted MW spells. The other with eliminators, might not have been a grate return for the points of shooting but he didn't live past 1 round of shooting.

These days it's getting easier to kill characters. I mean, yeah the TFC is pretty good, but it's not impossible to kill.

It's possible to do, but sniping the techmarine is generally going to be substantially more difficult to pull off than killing a Wyvern outright is.

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The above post is right. Thunderfire Cannons are gonna be busted as Imperial Fists.

Thunderfire Cannons are busted anyway. They were a staple of competitive marine lists before their 2.0 codex dropped and have only gotten better over time.

They need a points adjustment and/or rules changes. They are far too debilitating to units.

Maybe a bit in points. OOLOS weapons need -1 to hit when they can't see the target in my opinion.

The points difference is because kill the gunner and the TFC dies automatically 4W T4 Sv2+ isn't that hard to kill compaired to a wyvern.

The gunner is a character so they have to shoot the T6 4W TFC first unless they can position accordingly. TFC also only die if there isn't a techmarine gunner within range, but are prevented from shooting without their own gunner. A small difference, but it does make them a bit more resilient in multiples.

Ice_can wrote:

Seen it done 1 with targeted MW spells. The other with eliminators, might not have been a grate return for the points of shooting but he didn't live past 1 round of shooting.

Those spells are all 24" or less, so if you're there with enough casters other things went wrong. It takes 9 RG eliminators in tactical (not possible turn 1) to down him in one go. Many armies have nothing approaching that ability.

How the hell did he die against those things? Unless the game was already lost or there were really bad terrain it shouldnt even be possible. Without knowing more it feels like quite the missplay.

Only 36" range on eliminators and the ignore los shots wont do much against 4w 2+ save. The mortal wound spel should have even shorter range.

NM

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Seen it done 1 with targeted MW spells. The other with eliminators, might not have been a grate return for the points of shooting but he didn't live past 1 round of shooting.

Those spells are all 24" or less, so if you're there with enough casters other things went wrong. It takes 9 RG eliminators in tactical (not possible turn 1) to down him in one go. Many armies have nothing approaching that ability.

Sorry probably should have been clearer he got shot turn 1 shot back and died turn 2 one round of shooting before he died.

The MW was GSC and I've very little knowledge of their shenanigans wasn't my game and the guy was pretty salty about GSC BS so I didn't press it think he packed up early

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Seen it done 1 with targeted MW spells. The other with eliminators, might not have been a grate return for the points of shooting but he didn't live past 1 round of shooting.

Those spells are all 24" or less, so if you're there with enough casters other things went wrong. It takes 9 RG eliminators in tactical (not possible turn 1) to down him in one go. Many armies have nothing approaching that ability.

Flyers are how you take them out. Take 6 hell blasters in an impulsor could easily get the job done too.

Hellblasters in an impulsor sounds like a really ineffective counter to TFC I must say.