<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. "]]></title>
		<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/16.page</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest messages posted in the thread "Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. "]]></description>
		<generator>JForum - http://www.jforum.net</generator>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <br /> So the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> is a bad unit unless your putting mortars on them and sticking the out of <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(85);'>LOS</span>. A single Assualt Cannon can wipe out the entire squad and low <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>LD</span> means they don't even accept orders well. <br /> <br /> I think durability issue could be fixed slightly by adding a special rule to them. <br /> <br /> In the Dawn of War games <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> operate independently and can "dig in" to gain a huge defensive bonus and rate of fire increase. They become immobile and act as defensive emplacements. <br /> <br /> What I think the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(3);'>40k</span> version of <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> could do is have a "Dig in" Special rule that makes the squad immobile at the beginning of a movement phase. The squad would then get +1T and +1 cover save while it is dug in. That would eliminate most of the pesky <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(123);'>STR</span> 6-7 fire power that doubles out <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWTs</span>. +1 cover would allow for a tougher unit but would still be subject to barrage, Ignores Cover etc...<br /> <br /> For Infantry Blobs you could treat all <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> in that blob the way 2nd ed treated them, making them split off from the infantry squad into their own units. I would force any <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> in a platoons infantry squads to form its own <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> unit. This would let the Heavy weapons lay down supporting fire and keep the Blob mobile, you know like real modern infantry formations. <br /> <br /> What do you think?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625194.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625194.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 12:47:26]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Glocknall]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I think they are fine.  Still a way to getting several cheap heavy weapons without having to invest in loads of lasgun armed troops to not fire effectively.  The example you give of an assault cannon it mute.  The non-mortar <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> should be well out of range of the assault cannon.  These chaps should be in cover, ideally on objectives and well well well away from the 24" range of standard weapons.  <br /> <br /> Mortars are just funny - where did that come from, oh it didn't hurt us anyway, ha ha.- <br /> <br /> They still have the going to ground rules to get a better save.  If <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span> did buff the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWTs</span> then expect a pts increase as well.  The <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(328);'>ML</span> will possibly get flakk at their next iteration, I suppose if <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span> wanted to they could add options for them to take a small <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(637);'>ADL</span> panel (for a pts cost) so you had to worry less about finding cover.<br /> <br /> Anyway if an <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> player wants some more robust heavy support there are lots of tanks to go to in the fast attack and heavy support sections and fortifications available to them.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625283.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625283.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 13:15:37]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Jasper]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span>'s are actually not cheap. You pay 60 points base. 30 points for Guardsman and 10 points per mortar. A bit over costed seeing that all other mortars are 5pts a piece in  the codex. <br /> <br /> There plenty of longer range STR6 weapons in the game. And all you need is one hit to make a unit run off the table. Remember you placed your <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> far back to maximize your range? Guess how close that table edge now? <br /> <br /> The <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> is overcosted to start and fragile to boot. <br /> <br /> ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625299.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625299.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 13:20:58]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Glocknall]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Increasing toughness has never been part of digging in. +1 to cover i can see, as long as they remain immobile for the whole game, but cover is too much. <br /> <br /> I like the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(312);'>DKoK</span> weapon teams. its only 90 points for 3x lascannons. And they get combined squad if in the Siege Regement. That means i can grab a PIS and 2x heavy wep teams for a durable LD8 team with a vox in the squad to help with orders. Worked absolute wonders in the 8000 point game we played yesterday. Absorbed 3 rounds of firing from a stormlord and never lost a weapon base. ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625316.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625316.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 13:27:19]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ zephoid]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ They could make them eternal warrior then there would be no problems.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625470.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625470.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 14:11:42]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Sinji]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I think they should be artillery like rapier and sabres without the special rules and have a sarge and vox in the crew.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625645.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625645.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 14:57:10]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Lathor]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><a href="/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625470.page"><b>Sinji wrote:</b></a><br/>They could make them eternal warrior then there would be no problems.</div></blockquote><br /> It'd partially fix their problems. Instead of 1 <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(123);'>str</span>:6 shot making them run, 2 <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(123);'>str</span>:4 or better shots would likely make them run. <br /> <br /> They still have:<br /> Low <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(82);'>Ld</span><br /> No Vox<br /> No ablative wounds<br /> <br /> When all that adds up, even with <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(468);'>EW</span> they'd still be garbage. I like the "dig in" idea, and have suggested something like it before however it's not much of a fix. +1 T and +1 Cover Save would help them a little, but you're still left with the other issues above. The best way to fix them in my opinion is to allow them access to combined squads. <br /> I'd take <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(59);'>HWS</span> a fair amount if I could put them in my PIS. The price could remain the same too, since a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(59);'>HWS</span> is essentially paying for the privilege of adding another <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> to an infantry squad.<br /> <br /> Although if that was the case, removing them entirely and adding the option to take a second <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWT</span> for a PIS at 15pts + the cost of the weapon would just be so much easier.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625719.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625719.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 15:17:17]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Griddlelol]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I was reading the old cityfight supplement and it had a couple of interesting rules for <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(69);'>IG</span> infantry.<br /> <br /> Namely that you could "combat squad" infantry squads. So for example, if you had a 10 man squad with a lascannon, a meltagun, a sarge, and a vox, you could have the vox and 2 guardsmen stick with the heavy weapon team to guard it, and then have the sarge run up with 3 more guardsmen and the meltagun. Would only really mean something in small games, but I thought it was cool.<br /> <br /> The other let you split up heavy weapon squads, where they became immobile, and had a fixed field of fire. If they were within a certain distance of a vox or a "leader" (sarge, commander) they could move like normal. Otherwise they stayed put and shot at whatever came in range.<br /> <br /> For regular <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(3);'>40k</span>, I wish they would be 2 guys based seperately with a gun free standing like they used to be. Maybe give the gun a profile, like make it a T5 artillery piece with +4 save (because +3 with T7 would be ridiculous) That way they're tougher, to represent them digging in and having a gun shield, but not reaching "grot kannonz" level of stupid, with T7 grots taking autocannons to the face and laughing it off like it was nothing. But that'll never happen because almost everyone has their teams mounted on 60mm bases now.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625763.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625763.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 15:27:35]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ MrMoustaffa]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><a href="/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625470.page"><b>Sinji wrote:</b></a><br/>They could make them eternal warrior then there would be no problems.</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> If my immortal daemon prince can't have Eternal Warrior, Bob and Joe meatbag shouldn't get it either.<br /> <br /> ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625817.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625817.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 15:46:11]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ minigun762]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ If I may come with a completely different question concerning Heavy weapon squads:<br /> <br /> When chosen through a platoon from Troops choice, do these squads also count as scoring?]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625855.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625855.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 15:54:24]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Chaospling]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><img src="https://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/e826d68e6a95acc27f1c7ed5554a6bf9.png" height="20" border="0">&nbsp;<a href="/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625817.page"><b>minigun762 wrote:</b></a><br/><blockquote><div><a href="/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625470.page"><b>Sinji wrote:</b></a><br/>They could make them eternal warrior then there would be no problems.</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> If my immortal daemon prince can't have Eternal Warrior, Bob and Joe meatbag shouldn't get it either.<br /> <br /> </div></blockquote><br /> <br /> Well your immortal daemon prince is not two individual people. They whole concept of lumping two guardsman on one base and one profile is a flawed one, Eternal Warrior would actually work to represent two models on one base. They will still be hella squishy though. ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625887.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5625887.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 16:00:57]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Glocknall]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Well, let's say that you could do a special thing, where you could take an autocannon heavy weapons squad, and a heavy bolter heavy weapons squad and, if you took them in tandem, you could spend 20 points to give them a MASSIVE durability advantage, or do the same thing with an autocannon squad and a lascannon squad, and the same upgrade only cost 15 points.<br /> <br /> Well let me tell you...<br /> <br /> Leman Russ Exterminator - hull heavy bolter, sponson heavy bolters<br /> <br /> Leman Russ Exterminator - hull lascannon, sponson multimeltas<br /> <br /> voila, problem solved, and you don't even need to change any rules.<br /> <br /> <br /> ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626379.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626379.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 18:05:41]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Ailaros]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ The issue with taking <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(87);'>LRs</span> is that, I don't want to waste a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(57);'>HS</span> slot on well...autocannons. That <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(57);'>HS</span> slot has so many more amazing options. <br /> <br /> The other point is that internal balance should be a priority. In my opinion, a well designed codex should make me want to take everything. Having units that are so weak and easily out-classed by others performing a similar role is just poor design and I'd welcome change that made me think about it.<br /> <br /> "Is a more durable, <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(9);'>AV</span>:14 tank a better choice than a less durable <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(59);'>HWS</span> that can also score?" is a more interesting question than:<br /> "Do I have a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(87);'>LR</span> Exterminator in my model collection?"]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626403.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626403.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 18:12:44]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Griddlelol]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I would never expect that Ailaros proposes Forgeworld Armored Battlegroup <img src="/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gif" border="0">]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626534.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626534.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 18:44:41]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Lathor]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Well, really your question is if autocannons should be bothered with at all, regardless of slots. I suppose you get the same anti-tank killing power out of a multimelta/lascannon vanquisher as two lascannon HWSs, so you could always go down that route.<br /> <br /> And yeah, HWSs have terrible balance, the ability to score is meaningless in any situation wherein you get killed off the board. Plus, having extra scoring units isn't as important in purge, relic, or will games, and in big guns, the russes also get to score. Really, it's only 1/3rd of the missions that the fact that HWSs score makes a difference and, once again, that assumes that they survive. Compared to gaining relentles and AV14/13, it's a no-brainer to take the tanks.<br /> <br /> If you really wanted to fix HWSs, I think the best, easiest solution is to make it so that you're not stuck taking them only in squads of 3. If I could take a 9x lascannon <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(59);'>HWS</span> for 300 points, I'd actually consider it.<br /> <br /> <br /> ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626667.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626667.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 19:11:24]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Ailaros]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><img src="https://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/fe521ef049cf08dfe48f5a43cc4f107d.jpg" height="20" border="0">&nbsp;<a href="/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626667.page"><b>Ailaros wrote:</b></a><br/>Well, really your question is if autocannons should be bothered with at all, regardless of slots. I suppose you get the same anti-tank killing power out of a multimelta/lascannon vanquisher as two lascannon HWSs, so you could always go down that route.<br /> <br /> And yeah, HWSs have terrible balance, the ability to score is meaningless in any situation wherein you get killed off the board. Plus, having extra scoring units isn't as important in purge, relic, or will games, and in big guns, the russes also get to score. Really, it's only 1/3rd of the missions that the fact that HWSs score makes a difference and, once again, that assumes that they survive. Compared to gaining relentles and AV14/13, it's a no-brainer to take the tanks.<br /> <br /> If you really wanted to fix HWSs, I think the best, easiest solution is to make it so that you're not stuck taking them only in squads of 3. If I could take a 9x lascannon <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(59);'>HWS</span> for 300 points, I'd actually consider it.<br /> <br /> <br /> </div></blockquote><br /> <br /> They should get a sarge too.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626729.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5626729.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 19:25:33]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ 6^]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ In regards to a "Dig In" special rule, why not just give them the ability to go to ground without taking the normal penalty.  That's what real life Mortars and the like do anyway.  As far as Eternal Warrior, I concur with minigun762, if my Space Marine Attack Bike (again two mans on one base) don't get to be eternal warriors, than <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWTs</span> shouldn't either.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5627529.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5627529.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Thu, 16 May 2013 23:03:36]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ alienvalentine]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Rethinking the IG Heavy Weapon Teams. </title>
				<description><![CDATA[ No one said that only <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWTs</span> should get <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(468);'>EW</span>. <br /> <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(468);'>EW</span> would be logical for all other models that consist of two individuals, the topic is just not about any two man model but the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(638);'>HWTs</span>.<br /> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 9px; line-height: normal;">Automatically Appended Next Post:</span><br /> <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(72);'>IMO</span> all <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span> should have at least two wounds with all the double/special organs so the attack bike could be 3-4. But this quite off topic.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5628531.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/527466/5628531.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 17 May 2013 07:28:39]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Lathor]]></author>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>