Tactical value of ranged special/heavy weapons discussion

[GreyCrow]

Hello guys !

 

I wanted to have a topic of a different theme rather than asking a simple question.

 

We all know the advantages and the disadvantages of the different heavy/special weapons and their intended target. Unfortunately, because Marines are a standard and well known army, our opponents generally know that as well.

 

In response, they usually deploy/move in order to neuter the effectiveness of our special/heavy weapons. Rather than fighting an uphill battle, I wondered : "Hey, how about using that to our advantage, and make sure that we can control enemy movements through the use of heavy/special weapons !"

 

What I noticed in my latest games, which were against smart opponents, was that the unremarkable Boltguns, grenades and melee capability of the Tactical squads actually did most of the damage, while the specials were never got to fire to maximum efficiency. The opponent would try to make sure he wouldn't be too exposed to these weapons (in cover versus Plasma Cannons, further back to avoid Flamers for 5+ save models, etc).

 

There we are, trying to compile a multiple brain brainstorming session. Today, I'd like use to focus on the ranged arsenal, rather than the melee, for both heavy and special weapons, namely :

 

- Ranged specials

1) Flamer

2) Melta

3) Plasmagun

4) Grav

 

- Ranged Heavy

1) Heavy Bolter

2) Heavy Flamer

3) Multi-melta

4) Plasma Cannon

5) Missile Launcher and variants

6) Lascannon

7) Assault Cannon

8) Autocannons

9) Demolisher Cannon

10) Whirlwind Launcher

 

I'll compile the different good conclusions we come up to along the way. As a reminder, today's topic is "How can we leverage the fear of special weapons to hamper the enemy's battle plan and control his movements ?"

 

Thanks for contributing ! :D

[McFisty]

I try to stick to 48 inch range weapons for my heavy weapons choices because it helps to neutralize the faster and more mobile enemy armies that we often face. For example, a lascannon might not be as reliable at destroying enemy vehicles as a multi-melta, but the long range certainly makes up for that by consistently keeping targets in range at almost any location on the board. For tactical squads I prefer plasma guns because they synergize so well with bolters. They are both rapid fire and anti-infantry weapons. For example, a tactical squad with a melta gun that shoots at a tank has up to eight or nine models standing around drinking coffee while one or two guys take a shot at the vehicle. That's quite a waste of that unit's potential. Flamers might be tempting if you know you will be facing hoards, but I would recommend Whirlwinds and Thunderfire Cannons for those enemies. Again, those barrage weapons are long range while a flamer template is quite a short ranged weapon which you will likely use only once per game. Range and target synergy are king!

 

For The Lion!

 

McFisty

[incinerator950]

I guess it depends not just on the loadout, but the unit's deployment.  Deepstrikers and flankers are obviously going to have a different firefight then a linebacker.  Dual Plasma rifles to Plasma/Autocannons for Chaos marines, plasma rifle/Plasma Cannon for loyalists seems to be a common setup. 

[minigun762]

What I noticed in my latest games, which were against smart opponents, was that the unremarkable Boltguns, grenades and melee capability of the Tactical squads actually did most of the damage, while the specials were never got to fire to maximum efficiency. The opponent would try to make sure he wouldn't be too exposed to these weapons (in cover versus Plasma Cannons, further back to avoid Flamers for 5+ save models, etc).

 

I believe this is the most missed aspect of Marines and Tactical Squads specifically.

You have a great default kit, there is little out there you can't engage and have a reasonable chance of hurting.

 

Adding upgrades should always be done with the idea of supporting the rest of the squad. These upgrades should support the squad's role, not define it. This is why the plasma gun is such a good upgrade as it reinforces the basic unit's strength without forcing them to drastically change their intended role.

[tdemayo]

I generally use my heavy options to destroy enemy vehicles and crack open transports. Moble tac squads uses rhinos to close into position, and fire multiple squads within 12" at critical targets. Backfield tac squads usually hold in rhino, disembarking to counter attack or at end game to seize.

[Black Cohort]

 

 

What I noticed in my latest games, which were against smart opponents, was that the unremarkable Boltguns, grenades and melee capability of the Tactical squads actually did most of the damage, while the specials were never got to fire to maximum efficiency. The opponent would try to make sure he wouldn't be too exposed to these weapons (in cover versus Plasma Cannons, further back to avoid Flamers for 5+ save models, etc).

 

I believe this is the most missed aspect of Marines and Tactical Squads specifically.

You have a great default kit, there is little out there you can't engage and have a reasonable chance of hurting.

 

Adding upgrades should always be done with the idea of supporting the rest of the squad. These upgrades should support the squad's role, not define it. This is why the plasma gun is such a good upgrade as it reinforces the basic unit's strength without forcing them to drastically change their intended role.

I completely agree with what is stated here. I normally run flamer and heavy bolter in my tac squads, focuses them on infantry. Yes at longer range I lose one bolter shot but the 1-2 times per game I use the flamer it is awesome. Occasionally I use plasma guns instead of flamers, but normally plasma goes on a bike squad instead.

[Fibonacci]

As a reminder, today's topic is "How can we leverage the fear of special weapons to hamper the enemy's battle plan and control his movements ?"

 

From a Sisters of Battle point of view, the first things an opponent learns to hate are my Exorcists. They have a wide range of targets they are good against and good range. I usually find a place in cover to deploy them that gives a few good lanes of fire. With cover and AV13 front they have a solid resilience against return fire.

 

The first game my opponents chalk it up to lucky rolls for number of missiles. The second game they cuss every time I roll a 4 or more. The third game will have drop pods, DS terminators or some other method of getting behind the Exorcists quickly. This is when I will take Repentia and a Battle Conclave. Each will be deployed next to an Exorcist, just slightly behind and towards the inside. I'm not trying to prevent the DS, just get the charge bonus against them.

 

Other times I will do a full gun line in rhinos along with a defense line and quad-gun. No CC oriented options. When the drop pods come on I can survive the shooting in the rhinos. Then my full army opens fire on the part of the enemy army on my backfield while being careful to hide from as much of the enemy deployed on the opposite table edge as possible. Divide and conquer where the enemy does the division for you.

 

By then even the thickest SM player learns the value of crossfire and cover for his PA troops.  So it's time to crank out the flamers.  But a Command Squad with 5 heavy flamers in a Repressor (5 models may fire and it comes with a heavy flamer of its own) will only work one time.

 

Rock paper scissors.  What will your opponent do to counter your buff and what do you need in place to prevent that from happening or, better yet, to turn it against him.

[GreyCrow]

Great contributions so far guys !

 

I enjoy Minigun's point about the special weapons supporting the role of the Tactical squad rather than defining it. This is very true !

I used to run 2 minimal Tactical squads with combi-plasma and plasma cannons, and I actually lost much efficiency because I was trying to optimize the shooting of the plasma cannon rather than looking at it as a way to support the squad.

 

In later games with the Tacticals relying more on their boltguns and melee capability, I was surprised by the effectiveness I relatively forgot about.

 

Overall, the "standard issue" Marine kit allows to put hurt on most things like minigun said. The standard issue kit will lack efficiency versus more specialized units, like dedicated anti-infantry, dedicated melee, heavy armour. The rest, they can tackle, while not completely efficiently, but they can tackle.

 

I like Fibonnaci's idea of dividing and conquer. Force your opponent to spread out his forces, either by fear or either by opportunity and often both. I'll meditate on that tonight !

[minigun762]

 

 

As a reminder, today's topic is "How can we leverage the fear of special weapons to hamper the enemy's battle plan and control his movements ?"

From a Sisters of Battle point of view, the first things an opponent learns to hate are my Exorcists. They have a wide range of targets they are good against and good range. I usually find a place in cover to deploy them that gives a few good lanes of fire. With cover and AV13 front they have a solid resilience against return fire.

 

The first game my opponents chalk it up to lucky rolls for number of missiles. The second game they cuss every time I roll a 4 or more. The third game will have drop pods, DS terminators or some other method of getting behind the Exorcists quickly. This is when I will take Repentia and a Battle Conclave. Each will be deployed next to an Exorcist, just slightly behind and towards the inside. I'm not trying to prevent the DS, just get the charge bonus against them.

 

Other times I will do a full gun line in rhinos along with a defense line and quad-gun. No CC oriented options. When the drop pods come on I can survive the shooting in the rhinos. Then my full army opens fire on the part of the enemy army on my backfield while being careful to hide from as much of the enemy deployed on the opposite table edge as possible. Divide and conquer where the enemy does the division for you.

 

By then even the thickest SM player learns the value of crossfire and cover for his PA troops. So it's time to crank out the flamers. But a Command Squad with 5 heavy flamers in a Repressor (5 models may fire and it comes with a heavy flamer of its own) will only work one time.

 

Rock paper scissors. What will your opponent do to counter your buff and what do you need in place to prevent that from happening or, better yet, to turn it against him.

In my eyes this isn't an example of tactics but rather of strategy.

An overarching guiding principle for how to consistently win.

Very good post.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Instead of rehashing what we all already know about weapons and their basic functions, I want to bring up the weapons that I feel are under-performing, and why I feel that way.

 

- Graviton Gun: The Salvo penalty on moving reducing both range and shots make it almost like taking two heavy weapons in a single tactical squad. Plasma is almost always easier to use and will always complement the 24" Bolter, while 3+ makes Gets Hot! a non-issue, however, it will not be able to do anything in the extreme scenarios that the Grav-Gun excels.

 

- Heavy Bolter: This weapon isn't bad at all and is great on things like vehicle hulls or sponsons, but there is literally no reason to take it on tactical squads outside of light infantry hordes, in which case, a Combi-Flamer or (if it were available) Heavy Flamer combined with templates from elsewhere in the army are much better.

 

- Missile Launcher: It's still just as good as past editions and a great vehicle option, but it is too expensive on infantry especially with flakk, and many targets that require heavy weapons have high armor saves or armor value. Lascannons are much more worth the points.

 

- Assault Cannon: All the platforms this weapon is available on has better options, or are ill-suited to mount this weapon. The only exception being the Land Raider. The Contemptor uses a completely better version of the weapon as well.

 

- Demolisher Cannon: This is a great weapon, but the Vindicator it is mounted on is still stuck in 5th Edition. A Knight Titan will almost always be a better way to bring this weapon, and armies like Astra Militarum wield it much better. When scatter is a real issue, putting the Demolisher Cannon on such a fragile and vulnerable vehicle makes the weapon often fail to do anything other than waste points. The reason nobody really focuses on spamming Vindicators is the same reason nobody regularly deep strikes terminators as standard practice. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but in general we are seeing far less Vindicators than we used to. The Cannon has become an "Oh, that's an interesting unit to have chosen," rather than a mainstay.

 

- Whirlwind Launcher: Templates are great. Putting great weapons on bad chassis isn't. Same problem with Vindicator. I imagine squadrons would really help Whirlwinds, and points reduction or increased armor would make Vindicators better. Overpowered? Hardly, compared to what other armies--and even other C:SM units--can do for the points. That the Vindicator was increased in points cost with no added benefit outside of Iron Hands is criminal. If the Blood Angels have an equivalent vehicle, but with a fast engine, and they still don't take it, chances are the same vehicle but slower is not worth taking in C:SM.

 

If you disagree, I'd love to hear why and any suggestions for overcoming these issues.

[minigun762]

 

- Graviton Gun: The Salvo penalty on moving reducing both range and shots make it almost like taking two heavy weapons in a single tactical squad. Plasma is almost always easier to use and will always complement the 24" Bolter, while 3+ makes Gets Hot! a non-issue, however, it will not be able to do anything in the extreme scenarios that the Grav-Gun excels.

 

Grav gun is limited to Relentless units but on those, it is quite powerful. For the vast majority of situations, a plasma gun is equivalent to the grav gun. If all you fight is Eldar wraith constructions then yes, Grav is superior but the humble missile launcher will do a fine job here as well. 

 

 

 

- Heavy Bolter: This weapon isn't bad at all and is great on things like vehicle hulls or sponsons, but there is literally no reason to take it on tactical squads outside of light infantry hordes, in which case, a Combi-Flamer or (if it were available) Heavy Flamer combined with templates from elsewhere in the army are much better.

 

Sadly, I pretty much agree. It's a workable weapon if your squad is never going to move, but that's typically a waste of the extra bolter shots you could get by closing. People talk about being able to snap fire it since it has three shots but compared to something like a lascannon, those individual shots do less damage. 

 

As on odd bit of math-hammer, 

1 BS4 shot from a bolt pistol = 0.66 hits = 0.33 wounds = 0.11 dead MEQs

3 BS1 shots from a heavy bolter = 0.5 hits = 0.33 wounds = 0.11 dead MEQs

 

 

- Missile Launcher: It's still just as good as past editions and a great vehicle option, but it is too expensive on infantry especially with flakk, and many targets that require heavy weapons have high armor saves or armor value. Lascannons are much more worth the points.

Lascannons are normally better buys for a Devastator squad (I think both are bad buys for Tacticals) however IF Chapter Tactics can make the Missile Launcher very potent AT weapons and Flakk goes from poor buy to a good one. 

 

 

- Assault Cannon: All the platforms this weapon is available on has better options, or are ill-suited to mount this weapon. The only exception being the Land Raider. The Contemptor uses a completely better version of the weapon as well.

I would add that the flyers with AC's are pretty amazing. You really couldn't ask for a better all weapon to kill enemy flyers with. It has enough shots and high enough S to handle most anything in the air. 

 

 

 

- Demolisher Cannon: This is a great weapon, but the Vindicator it is mounted on is still stuck in 5th Edition. A Knight Titan will almost always be a better way to bring this weapon, and armies like Astra Militarum wield it much better. When scatter is a real issue, putting the Demolisher Cannon on such a fragile and vulnerable vehicle makes the weapon often fail to do anything other than waste points. The reason nobody really focuses on spamming Vindicators is the same reason nobody regularly deep strikes terminators as standard practice. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, but in general we are seeing far less Vindicators than we used to. The Cannon has become an "Oh, that's an interesting unit to have chosen," rather than a mainstay.

With the shift away from elite infantry to MCs, the Vindicator's target's have changed as well. Now I consider them a good way to kill AV13/14 as a longer range alternative to Melta. S10 with the ordnance rule works very well against armor and you only have to clip the model to hit it. 

People often forget that a single melta hit only has a 58% to penetrate AV14, so it's far from a sure thing. 

 

 

 

- Whirlwind Launcher: Templates are great. Putting great weapons on bad chassis isn't. Same problem with Vindicator. I imagine squadrons would really help Whirlwinds, and points reduction or increased armor would make Vindicators better. Overpowered? Hardly, compared to what other armies--and even other C:SM units--can do for the points. That the Vindicator was increased in points cost with no added benefit outside of Iron Hands is criminal. If the Blood Angels have an equivalent vehicle, but with a fast engine, and they still don't take it, chances are the same vehicle but slower is not worth taking in C:SM.

My beef with the WW is that the TFC was given barrage. They should have left it as a direct fire weapon and the WW as the barrage option. 

[Black Cohort]

Tyberos I disagree with your assessments of several weapons.

 

First the Grav gun.  On infantry it is almost always inferior to the plasma gun, but on bikes the grav gun shines.  Bikes speed negates the range issues, relentless means you will always fire max shots and the twin linked bolter stays on the bike so you still have a decent weapon against models with a bad save.

 

Next, the heavy bolter.  I almost always take them on my tactical squads.  the rumoured change to snap fire will only this more likely.  lots of other options tempt you to fire the heavy at a target the rest of the marines are ineffective against.  Taking a heavy bolter removes that temptation.  And it is super cheap on a tac squad, keeping costs of the squad down and giving you a clear role for them. 

 

Missile launcher are good either on their own or in volume.  Thus they make a great weapon on either tac or dev squads.  In dev squads they are great for busting up to av 12 (particularly with fist chapter tactics) and can be helpful against av 13 or 14 in a pinch.  as a single heavy in a tac squad they are great for either the small blast or to remove a single 3+ model.

 

The assault cannon is over costed on some chassis (I am looking at you Dreadnought) but is handy on a squad of terminators or land raider.  Rending is an amazing rule that allows you to go big tank hunting or just tear apart elite infantry.

 

My Vindicator always makes it into my list because one of 2 things will happen early game.  Either my opponent will realize the threat and devote a lot of shooting to kill it or it survives and my opponent learns to regret that.  Yes longer range would be nice, but show me where else marines are going to get a large blast weapon that wounds almost anything on a 2+ and ignores armour.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Sorry I wasn't clear, the Grav-Guns were considered from a tactical squad standpoint, as anything on bikes is good, and better than its infantry counterpart. This may change with the new jink nerf.

 

The HB is ineffective whether snapfiring or not, as shown by minigun762's math. If you want to keep points down on a tactical squad, skipping the heavy weapon altogether saves even more points. I'd even go so far as to argue the Bolter you keep is more useful than the HB you buy. MM also keeps the range at 24" if that is an issue.

 

MLs are great period, but to get them in volume costs an insane amount of points with the new codex. That was my main and only complaint about them.

 

I already said the LR is one of the best mounts for the Assault Cannon, as well as the Stormraven which I forgot, but Terminators should be taking CMLs, and Terminators shouldn't be taken at all. They're not a terrible unit by all means, but they are not the first avenue we approach when looking where to best spend our points for maximum effect and efficiency. Especially given that they are Elites and will never score outside of Novamarines.

 

We all know Vindicators are threats and high priority targets. But IMO wasting 120 points to absorb anything less than an entire army's worth of shooting is not a good bargain. I did not mention anything about the Vindicator's range being insufficient.

 

Not trying to be rude, and you are entitled to your opinions, but much of what you said doesn't really refute the issues presented, nor was there any suggestions on what to do. Though to be fair, if I am the one who is wrong there isn't really anything to "fix". But thousands of marine players are avoiding these specific weapons for reasons, and I doubt the reason is "because all marine players are idiots."

[minigun762]

Sorry I wasn't clear, the Grav-Guns were considered from a tactical squad standpoint, as anything on bikes is good, and better than its infantry counterpart. This may change with the new jink nerf.

 

Ahh my mistake, I thought you were talking about the weapon systems in general. 

[Black Cohort]

How is +1 shot, +1 str and better AP a terrible choice?  moving it is as effective as a bolt pistol according to math, but math doesn't play 40k and if I stay still I get all the benefits for low cost.

 

MLs cost the same as they did in the old codex (assuming you don't get flak).  Devs got much cheaper in the new codex, I don't think I ever saw them used in 5th, but myself and others use them routinely now.

 

I agree a cyclone missile launcher is good, but the assault cannon is also to me an equally good choice.  Terminators have suffered in recent years it is true, but they are incredibly effective when used properly.  But since they aren't an under-costed unit that requires no brains to use, the internet says they are terrible. 

 

Vindicators often make their points back if they fire a single shot.  yes it is a risk because your opponent might get lucky and blow it up on the first shot, but other times they don't.  What do you do when a Ironclad land behind you and a vindicator with a land raider beside it are in front of you?  Have a rhino on the other side of the vindicator so they can only get shots at your front armour.  Like terminators Vindicators require skill to use, and presenting your enemy with lots of high priority targets to confuse them.

 

In my years of playing 40k I have found that having a plan is the most important part.  I rarely play with what the internet says my army should look like and am often more successful for it.  People plan for what they expect and most people expect to see what the internet says is good, play the unexpected and you already have an advantage against most people.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

Missile Launchers were FREE in 5th Edition, how can you say they cost the same?

 

The "Vindicator only needs to fire once" fallacy is one I see once in a while, and it makes me wonder, why don't people just take Captains for the Orbital Bombardment? The range is unlimited and you only "need" the one shot, right? It's cheaper points-wise as well. Scatter is 4" more, but let's face it, a fair amount of the time both will be a direct hit, and scatter is already not ideal for either one, so 4" more shouldn't make or break it. If 4" more on the full scatter means Orbital Bombardment sucks (in comparison to a 4" less scatter from a Vindicator), then that means most Vindicator shots that scatter are also terrible, because they're X" worse than what you "needed", where X is your scatter result.

 

The Vindicator does have benefits such as AV13 and vehicle saturation and I did mention it is a viable build when people take 2 or 3, but this is more of a case that of the weapon carrying the tank and not the tank making the weapon good. My main issue isn't with the Demolisher Cannon but the Vindicator's design itself. Leman Russ or Knight Titans are almost always preferable to a Vindicator, factions aside.

 

The problem isn't that the Internet says don't take HBs or Vindicators and therefore they suck. There's usually a reason for it. An Eldar jetseer list can handle a Vindicator or some HBs regardless, and options like tactical HBs are simply better off with other options or not being taken at all in such a scenario. Heavy Bolters can wreck DE though so they do at least have a niche use and are great vehicle weapon options because they are usually cheap. But nobody auto-loses because "I wasn't expecting Heavy Bolters!" The only armies that do are also being played by players who are aware of their army's anti-meta status, and they will know their most glaring weaknesses all the more keenly. Therefore, it's logical to assume that you won't catch anyone by surprise with a HB, because either their list will be strong enough to not care, or they will know they are weak to the weapon. If they make an army that auto-loses to HB spam and they don't care because nobody plays HBs, the question becomes if it's worth capitalizing on that one minuscule chance should you play them and not being terribly effective against everyone else.

[Black Cohort]

Missile launcher costs were hidden within the squad same with a flamer so you paid for a special and heavy if you took them or not, devs pay the same price as they did before, therefore the cost hasn't changed.

 

I agree there are better platforms that you can get a demolisher cannon on, but someone fielding a pure marine army cannot take them.  My point about a Vindicator often making it's points back in one shot was merely to illustrate that the vehicle is well costed, often times it works out well, but not always and the platform has weaknesses you have to compensate for.  If GW could design everything as well as vindicator in game, the system would probably be much better balanced and better for it.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

I don't believe the vehicle is well costed, if only because the price increased by I believe 5 or 10 points. With the direction the game is going, and new units becoming stronger and less expensive, it should have stayed the same and perhaps everyone else's Vindicators could be lowered in price.

 

I think one thing I didn't realize in my analysis of the weapons is that this is still a game based on luck, and like you said, math isn't everything in 40K, although I feel you worded it a bit poorly, because 40K is math and statistics in terms of shooting. A big problem is when everything is viewed through the lens of maximum efficiency you start dismissing options like the HB or even the Vindicator despite one being perfectly capable of winning games with either.

 

Luckily, I don't think I outright said any of the weapons I pointed out were bad or terrible and certainly not unplayable, I did pretty much imply that, and I don't think it's necessarily fair or true. Maybe I should have said I wished these weapons were more flexible or had more readily applicable uses in which they excel. Flamers are already a bit of a niche weapon, but they are just so good at laying down templates that a lot of people don't really say flamers suck, unless they are very hardcore min/maxers.

 

Since GW seems to refuse to balance things around the level of the Vindicator, I think all options really ought to be brought up to par with the superior units. Take, for example, the Riptide. It also drops large blasts, but it is far and away better than the Vindicator at everything but strength value. You don't need to run multiples although you can, and it doesn't really need any sort of support, not even markerlights. Maybe it isn't healthy for everything to be Riptide/Heldrake level efficient, but as long as those units exist and keep on existing, and the game is moving towards Unbound options, and things like terminators are stuck with near-mandatory Land Raider transports and Vindicators with mandatory duplicates, it makes these units less appealing and less efficient. Which is better, being able to field the Riptide however you want, or being forced to take multiple Vindicators and transports?

[tdemayo]

I don't believe the vehicle is well costed, if only because the price increased by I believe 5 or 10 points. With the direction the game is going, and new units becoming stronger and less expensive, it should have stayed the same and perhaps everyone else's Vindicators could be lowered in price.

 

I think one thing I didn't realize in my analysis of the weapons is that this is still a game based on luck, and like you said, math isn't everything in 40K, although I feel you worded it a bit poorly, because 40K is math and statistics in terms of shooting. A big problem is when everything is viewed through the lens of maximum efficiency you start dismissing options like the HB or even the Vindicator despite one being perfectly capable of winning games with either.

 

Luckily, I don't think I outright said any of the weapons I pointed out were bad or terrible and certainly not unplayable, I did pretty much imply that, and I don't think it's necessarily fair or true. Maybe I should have said I wished these weapons were more flexible or had more readily applicable uses in which they excel. Flamers are already a bit of a niche weapon, but they are just so good at laying down templates that a lot of people don't really say flamers suck, unless they are very hardcore min/maxers.

 

Since GW seems to refuse to balance things around the level of the Vindicator, I think all options really ought to be brought up to par with the superior units. Take, for example, the Riptide. It also drops large blasts, but it is far and away better than the Vindicator at everything but strength value. You don't need to run multiples although you can, and it doesn't really need any sort of support, not even markerlights. Maybe it isn't healthy for everything to be Riptide/Heldrake level efficient, but as long as those units exist and keep on existing, and the game is moving towards Unbound options, and things like terminators are stuck with near-mandatory Land Raider transports and Vindicators with mandatory duplicates, it makes these units less appealing and less efficient. Which is better, being able to field the Riptide however you want, or being forced to take multiple Vindicators and transports?

 

Agreed. I think anything on a Predator chassis is over-priced these days.

[Azash]

For a cheap option on my tactical squads I will take a Combi Melta, flamer, and missile launcher. Not the typical all melta or all plasma load outs you see.

 

The reason I do this is because I don't build tailored lists at all. So I prefer the swiss army knife style utility and I like how it forces my opponents to react to the tactical squads. No matter what opponent I'm playing.

 

As an example look at Eldar. The eldar players see the missile launchers and have to keep the front or side armor facing my tacs at all times. A few tacs with missiles will put a kink in the war walker rush strategy as well. If they get to close they know deploying tacticals all have melta capability. If they let me get to close to weaker troops my flamers become a real threat so a simple rhino rush has to be accounted for. Also at range and close in each squad can wound high toughness creatures.

 

This combined with the majority of eldar weapons forces them into one of two areas; 48+ or 24-36 inch range. In turn I stock the rest of my army with things that are effective at those range areas. So typically an eldar player in my games ends up letting me needle at them at longer range while with tacs, stalkers, and now an IK. This let's me then take prime real estate near the middle and start to play board denial.

 

In the next game I get Orks I am able to use the same load in a different way though that is more condussive against horde. The ork play will then have to react to the ranged anti tank (great against trucks), the anti horde flamers, and he can't run carblanche with the battle wagons.

 

Basically I am going for the flexibility which means my tacs always factor in multiple phases forcing the opponent to account for them.

[GreyCrow]

Please, let's not this thread become a "X weapon is better than Y weapon" ;)

All in all, we can see in this thread that there are counters to basically any weapon system the Marine Codex can bring. Any smart opponent will deploy and move in order to reduce the efficiency of our weapons systems, and nothing less should be expected.

 

The goal of this thread is to see how we can use that to our advantage so that while the opponent thinks he is countering our army, he actually isn't. Pretty much like what Azash contributed. Basically, what you said is : the threat of your long range weapons scares the enemy, and lets you cover your advance with the Tactical squads, knowing that if they get too close as well, they are done for.

[Excubitor]

I love my whirlwinds. It's a danger to anything that isn't a MC or heavy armour. If they get bunched up (can be easier to do with certain armies) even better! I've used them to great effect against targets all across the spectrum, from guardsmen and grots to firewarriors, terminators and even Chimeras (our guard and GK henchmen players have stopped putting them anywhere near each other now). And then we get pinning, in addition to casualties caused.

 

It's cheap, mobile, doesn't require LoS and can cause a severe crimp in an opponents plan through pinning a unit at a bad time. Sure, it doesn't always happen, but your opponents will have to figure that into their plans once it starts happening to them. Pop a transport, then Whirlwind the nicely bunched-up survivors. A couple of squads have bad run/move through cover rolls and end up bunched up, drop a WW on them.

 

And if they spread out their squads to make the WW less effective, great! It dilutes the power the squad can put on a single area, and makes shooting at it with other units more effective as it's return fire/counter-attack is less effective.

 

Flamer and Missile Launcher tactical squads, with a power weapon sergeant, have been my first pick since 3rd edition, and will remain so unless something drastic changes. The flexibility offered to me is invaluable, as unlike my regular opponents I play one army, Space Marines, and can be facing anything from an orc horde, to a Tyranid MC spam, to a GK terminator list, and so on. Usually all tailored, to a degree, to counter my space marines.

 

Interestingly, I don't usually take vindicators, lascannons (apart from maybe 1 in a devastator squad for the BS5 signum shot), or melta (outside of Vulkan Hes'tan) in my lists. Not because they're bad, but because I have the most horrendous luck with them. Since experience tells me they don't do anything for me, I don't take them. This is probably true for most players, regardless of the math.

[knife&fork]

It's difficult to justify the whirlwind when the thunderfire exists. If WW could be taken in squads like the wyvern things would be different. 

[Excubitor]

Mobility for me is the key. While it may be more durable, its inability to maintain it's firepower while moving is what I don't like about it. When your opponents regularly field a variety of fast, deep striking and outflanking units (wolf scouts are my most hated example) the ability of the WW to redeploy, maneuver and fire and generally make a nuisance of itself even if it's weapon is destroyed (tank shock and a LoS blocking hull are not to be underestimated as tools) as well as it's cheaper cost makes it more useful in my lists.

Plus the Thunderfire model is just a .

[incinerator950]

At least you have better options than the Defiler.