Transuranic arquebuse and terrain

[Izan]

Hi,

 

I'm not a great player but I question myself with the utility of the transuranic arquebuse. GW seems to encourage the use of a lot of LOS blocker terrains. What about the Arquebuse and her inability to move and shot ? I'm afraid that this change kill this weapon. When I see the GSC and the mobility of the Jackal Alphus I'm a bit worried. I know I make a comparison between a troop and a HQ but it seems that mobility is a better asset than having a very great weapon range.

 

What do you think about that ? Am I wrong ?

[Danny Cyanide]

Different roles. If I was going to use a transuranic arquebuse it would be in a unit that is intended to camp an objective. Something that once I've got it where I want it, it will stay still. Plus, most people don't play with enough terrain as is, so you likely won't wind up without any targets.

[brother_b]

Set them up in a tall piece of terrain and you’ll get some good line of sight. Also they can act as a deterrent to weaker characters. If they get tagged by a unit that deep strikes you’re out of luck. Also if a unit deepstrikes and threatens you out of line of sight you’re also out of luck because if you move to target you lose your shots with the TUA.

 

I like to use them as a backfield unit with other back field units for the screen. A second unit of rangers with rail rifles or stock to hold a secondary objective and back up the TUA works well.

[Xisor]

I typically have two small units, on the flanks.

 

High if possible, covering a long avenue (as deterrent) if not possible.

 

But I generally have a good amount of Los blocking terrain, and I enjoy City Fight style games a lot, and still feel that sort of heavy firepower is useful.

 

On an open field it's less useful, and more... Boring.

 

Generally, this concern is why I cannot seriously contemplate using all-phosphor Kastellan - committing to a situation where shooting protocols is valid, means never moving, and moving means being preposterously below one's potential output.

 

If I can plonk robots in such a place, keeping them stationary should be desirable, but not entirely the be-all/end-all. (See Devastator/Havocs in older editions.)

 

But the protocol to force them to stay stationary is an immense penalty, and so generally counteracts the idea.

 

I don't know.

 

I feel like it forces all/nothing, and in doing so removes all other consideration.

 

The maximisation potential is huge, so the gulf might as well be 1:0.

 

Apt that it would be binary.

 

With the TUA, I don't think the consideration is at all so drastic, especially with the recent points reduction. (And that whoever is carrying the TUA also has ObjectiveSecured considerations.)