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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The multilaser isn't a shotgun--there isn't really a "spread".

The reason why, IMO, we should consider the Multilaser for a Pistol role or something like that? It's a weapon that commonly gets described as being more akin to a defensive armament. A large part of the bulk is the cooling setup and the power generation.

What's pistol even do on a vehicle? Vehicles can already shoot into close combat. You'd be better off making it assault.

The multi-laser is among the few Astra Militarum weapons that is specific to our faction. Meaning it is one of the few candidates for a profile rework, that would not cause an inter-codex inconsistency.
Apart from that, maybe there is scion's hot-shot volley gun, but the other ones are also vehicle weapons.

Currently the multi-laser has a firepower equivalent to about six infantry's laser guns (at long range). This is quite weak. I would like to see a rework, but I have little hope it will be the case.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The multilaser isn't a shotgun--there isn't really a "spread".

The reason why, IMO, we should consider the Multilaser for a Pistol role or something like that? It's a weapon that commonly gets described as being more akin to a defensive armament. A large part of the bulk is the cooling setup and the power generation.

What's pistol even do on a vehicle? Vehicles can already shoot into close combat. You'd be better off making it assault.

Do whatever, just make it clear that it's a primarily defensive piece of kit that while having a high ROF isn't an imprecise brrt brrt gun.

I haven't read that much of novels of imperial guard perspective (only Ciaphas Cains and Gaunts Gosts), but have missed so far that multilasers are defensive weapons. In the Cain novels they are usually described as having quite a punch and being full grown offensive weaponry (even though not with the anti armor punch of Heavy bolters) and the only mention I remember from Gaunts Ghosts was an Artillery regiment with Multilaser Carriages used for laying down fire into advancing infantry.

I also don't remember reading that in the Codex. Where do you have that from, Kanluwen?

I wouldn't mind the multilaser being something like: 2d6 S5 attacks (instead of the 3 strength 6 attacks).

If it goes up to something like heavy 6, I'd also like to add -1 ap as well. Honestly: either 2d6 S5 attacks or Heavy 6, str 6, ap -1, would both be worth taking.

leerm02 wrote:

I wouldn't mind the multilaser being something like: 2d6 S5 attacks (instead of the 3 strength 6 attacks).

If it goes up to something like heavy 6, I'd also like to add -1 ap as well. Honestly: either 2d6 S5 attacks or Heavy 6, str 6, ap -1, would both be worth taking.

Yeah, basically up the rate of fire to represent it as a chaff clearing and suppressing type of weapon, versus the heavy bolter which acts as an anti-elite infantry and light vehicle weapon.

The second profile would basically be an improved heavy bolter (same AP, better S same damage against W2, better against W1 or W3) and a bit much...

Grimskul wrote:

leerm02 wrote:

I wouldn't mind the multilaser being something like: 2d6 S5 attacks (instead of the 3 strength 6 attacks).

If it goes up to something like heavy 6, I'd also like to add -1 ap as well. Honestly: either 2d6 S5 attacks or Heavy 6, str 6, ap -1, would both be worth taking.

Yeah, basically up the rate of fire to represent it as a chaff clearing and suppressing type of weapon, versus the heavy bolter which acts as an anti-elite infantry and light vehicle weapon.

Pyroalchi wrote:The second profile would basically be an improved heavy bolter (same AP, better S same damage against W2, better against W1 or W3) and a bit much...

I agree that boosting it's RoF would be the best option. Make HB for use vs. anti elite and a Heavy 4-5 multilaser for chaff clearing. Each weapon would have it's uses and IMO make Chimera/Sentinel weapon options have more meaning.

Yeah, hadn't thought of the similarities to the HB. The 2d6 str5 is the superior choice... but with the guard's luck: they will end up making it WORSE somehow instead!

(and btw: Salted Diamond, I had a good chuckle at your signature quote!)

leerm02 wrote:
Yeah, hadn't thought of the similarities to the HB. The 2d6 str5 is the superior choice... but with the guard's luck: they will end up making it WORSE somehow instead!

(and btw: Salted Diamond, I had a good chuckle at your signature quote!)

I used to have a 100% FW Elysian army that I got rid of when they squatted them. It was the only way to really play them as you had to be very aggressive with them to be effective. "Go big or go home" was their other motto.

I think the multilaser would be cool if it kept it's stats, but switched to Rapid Fire 3. Would seem like a really decent squad support vehicle that way. Would team up well with the Steel Legion 18" Rapid Fire too.

If you see a change, just be wary cause it might be a cosmetic change. Us orks got t5, but then lost a 5++, got price bumped, and now suffer massive morale.

Why don’t we make the multi-laser a giant hotshot volley gun. S6, AP-2, Heavy 4.

Surely a vehicle based laser weapon with a similar role to the volley gun should be more powerful.

Jarms48 wrote:

 RegularGuy wrote:
Well I regret if it sounds like there is any desire to pretend falsely about rules or that there is any intent to be disingenuous.

Elsewhere I've read the Catachan Strategem "Burn them out" causes a unit hit by it to lose cover for the rest of the phase. I was merely wondering if the wording here suggested a similar mechanic.

Please do not assume ill intent. I merely seek clarification.

The Catachan ruling is wrong. It only removes cover on flamer and heavy flamer weapons in that unit.

Are you sure about the Catachan Order?

"You can re-roll the dice when determining the number of attacks the ordered unit can make with flamers and heavy flamers until the end of the phase. In addition, units targeted by models from the ordered unit with these weapons do not gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover this phase."

This reads for me as no cover at all this shooting phase.

Yes I had always read it as that. They had literally been burnt out of their cover.

Jarms48 wrote:
Why don’t we make the multi-laser a giant hotshot volley gun. S6, AP-2, Heavy 4.

Surely a vehicle based laser weapon with a similar role to the volley gun should be more powerful.

That puts it like right between a lascannon and a lasgun, I like that one.

G'day guys, looking for some clarification and thought I'd come directly to the commissars for it.

Got the new Gaunts Ghosts box, and they have the keyword "Tanith" for the <regiment> keyword (makes sense).

As someone who wants to use them in my regular Cadian army, would the inclusion of this unit remove the ability for everyone else to get the Cadian regiment trait? Would I need to shell out the CP and take them in an aux. support detachment instead? Or would Gaunts Ghosts behave similar to Tempestus Scions in that they don't affect the rest of the regiment but they also don't benefit from the Cadian doctrine.

Thanks in advance!

As far as I understand their rules they would keep your Cadians from benefiting from their doctrin.

One option would be to use them as HQ choice for a detachment including Bullgryns, Ogryns, Commissars, Psykers and all the stuff that doesn't care about regiment anyway.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
As far as I understand their rules they would keep your Cadians from benefiting from their doctrin.

One option would be to use them as HQ choice for a detachment including Bullgryns, Ogryns, Commissars, Psykers and all the stuff that doesn't care about regiment anyway.

That was my fear, thanks. Might chuck them in a patrol with a bunch of other aux. stuff as you suggested, or in smaller games just sacrifice the CP to take them as an Aux. Supp. Det.

I just realized that you could call your whole regiment Tanith, say that you'll use the Cadian doctrin for your Tanith regiment and be fine. You couldn't include Cadian specific characters though

Are you sure about the Catachan Order?

"You can re-roll the dice when determining the number of attacks the ordered unit can make with flamers and heavy flamers until the end of the phase. In addition, units targeted by models from the ordered unit with these weapons do not gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover this phase."

You're highlighting the wrong part.

"...units targeted by models from the ordered unit with these weapons (IE: flamers and heavy flamers) do not gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover this phase."

It only ignores cover for flamers and heavy flamers in the ordered unit. That's it.

 Raichase wrote:
G'day guys, looking for some clarification and thought I'd come directly to the commissars for it.

Got the new Gaunts Ghosts box, and they have the keyword "Tanith" for the <regiment> keyword (makes sense).

As someone who wants to use them in my regular Cadian army, would the inclusion of this unit remove the ability for everyone else to get the Cadian regiment trait? Would I need to shell out the CP and take them in an aux. support detachment instead? Or would Gaunts Ghosts behave similar to Tempestus Scions in that they don't affect the rest of the regiment but they also don't benefit from the Cadian doctrine.

Thanks in advance!

They also have the keyword OFFICIO PREFECTUS, making them basically Commissars. You can take them in any army without losing regiment rules.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
I just realized that you could call your whole regiment Tanith, say that you'll use the Cadian doctrin for your Tanith regiment and be fine. You couldn't include Cadian specific characters though

Yeah, that's fair, I was hoping to keep the option to take Pask open though!

 necrontyrOG wrote:
They also have the keyword OFFICIO PREFECTUS, making them basically Commissars. You can take them in any army without losing regiment rules.

...aaaand problem solved. Thanks for that, I totally missed that!

I have Gaunts dudes too and missed that as well, thanks necrontyrOG.

Just a note, there's apparently something for Cadians in the upcoming Octarius book.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Just a note, there's apparently something for Cadians in the upcoming Octarius book.

Screw these pay-to-win DLC of a book. I'm not buying this nonsense anymore.

While I know this thread is more aimed at competitive play...

Plasma or Melta for infantry squads? I'm building a fluffy-not really competitive Tallarn army (stuff like 20 rough riders) but I still want it to be effective enough. I want to have 3-4 of my 8 infantry squads push forward with the rough riders so they can use them Tallarn WL trait to fall back and then charge to get the use of their hunting lances, but I'm not sure if plasma or melta would be better for them.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
Screw these pay-to-win DLC of a book. I'm not buying this nonsense anymore.

Have you seen the rules already? Do you know for sure that it will be stronger than what you can do currently with Guard? Were the last books pay to win for Belakor armies? For Death Guard?

 Salted Diamond wrote:
While I know this thread is more aimed at competitive play...

Plasma or Melta for infantry squads? I'm building a fluffy-not really competitive Tallarn army (stuff like 20 rough riders) but I still want it to be effective enough. I want to have 3-4 of my 8 infantry squads push forward with the rough riders so they can use them Tallarn WL trait to fall back and then charge to get the use of their hunting lances, but I'm not sure if plasma or melta would be better for them.

Per the 3.5 'dex, Plasma for Infantry would probably be fluffier, but there's a TO&E from FW for a Tallarn light infantry company that implies that some squads might carry Meltas (img below if I can get it to work). Have you given the Rough Riders any special weapons? You might be able to fit enough Meltas in there if you split them up right.

@ salted diamond: purely from a theoretical point of view I would say meltas. Plasma would be better against Marines and other W2 models, but your rough riders already bring quite a lot of D2 (or was is Dd3?) damage. Also your infantry dudes would be in optimal Melta range if you plan on pushing them forward, which is nice.

I would keep in mind though, that either way they might not do that much. In the first turn they will likely movemovemove to keep up with the rough riders and don't shoot at all. In the next turn some of them might already be dead or find themselves in CC. So skipping the special weapons and seeing them mainly as bodies to throw forward and use tactically to bind and distract enemies might also be a valid strategy