We're Gonna Get a Book!

[NatBrannigan]

I’m going for 4 units of 5 in a dual Battalion (2 units of 5 Auto Intercessors as well) because I love infiltrating units. I also like the idea of the Phobos cap and Lt buffing all the units with a comms array while still giving a Buff to your firebase. Just seems very ‘Fist’ with the commander issuing orders to his troops.

 

I know it’s not the best since you can’t do that and make the Phobos Cap a CM but I’m still going for it. I’d love a points decrease (and on the Repulsor as well) to squeeze a few more Intercessors in but I’m pretty happy with my list.

 

Should point out I’m not trying to win any tournaments though (taking a Vindicator which is probably considered a bit meh) so don’t know that that many Infiltrators is massively competitive…

[Utter Polux]

How was comparing 4 HB to 4 LC ever a valid comparison? The closest point comparison is 8 HB vs 5 LC if you factor points into the argument which of course you should.

 

Vs T8 3+ Save

 

LC do 7.8 damage

HB do 8.9 damage

 

So it’s plainly obvious that the HB is more efficient for its points vs this level of target. This is without any buffs at all but factoring in that 8 HB have 24 shots, hitting 16 times with an additional 4 hits coming from the IF 6’s exploding. Result is 20 hits causing 6.7 wounds resulting in 8.9 damage.

 

Now let’s think for a second about a similar target that has a 5+ invul save. Against a HB is doesn’t factor in because the ap is already only -2. Against lascannons and plasma cannons it reduces their effect considerably.

 

LC now go down to 5 damage

HB remains at 8.9 damage

 

It’s already been mentioned that the HB is also a legit weapon vs infantry where as the LC is not.

 

Heavy bolters win win win with IF. I’m not suggesting you spam them and go crazy. I built a list with none at all. But they are better in every way with the buffs from IF.

[DesSaboteur]

How was comparing 4 HB to 4 LC ever a valid comparison? The closest point comparison is 8 HB vs 5 LC if you factor points into the argument which of course you should.

 

Vs T8 3+ Save

 

LC do 7.8 damage

HB do 8.9 damage

 

So it’s plainly obvious that the HB is more efficient for its points vs this level of target. This is without any buffs at all but factoring in that 8 HB have 24 shots, hitting 16 times with an additional 4 hits coming from the IF 6’s exploding. Result is 20 hits causing 6.7 wounds resulting in 8.9 damage.

 

Now let’s think for a second about a similar target that has a 5+ invul save. Against a HB is doesn’t factor in because the ap is already only -2. Against lascannons and plasma cannons it reduces their effect considerably.

 

LC now go down to 5 damage

HB remains at 8.9 damage

 

It’s already been mentioned that the HB is also a legit weapon vs infantry where as the LC is not.

 

Heavy bolters win win win with IF. I’m not suggesting you spam them and go crazy. I built a list with none at all. But they are better in every way with the buffs from IF.

 

This is where it can be hard to mathhammer out some stuff, I think the conclusion we can all come to is that our supplement made the heavy bolter a better weapon and deserves some reconsideration. I personally have invested more into the weapon and have been seeing some good results with it, even before using the supplement. But i am sure here in a month or so we are going to be seeing some IF lists making the top tables and they will have more heavy bolters than we have seen before in other marine lists.

[Lemondish]

Cost comparisons have to include the price of the unit, not just the price of the gun. A heavy bolter is much more than 40% the price of a lascannon once you factor in the price of whoever’s holding it.

 

Not when the on topic comparison was using the same unit, just with different weapons. We were talking about Devastators because that's what Fulkes brought up, after all. Feel free to change the subject, but it's easier if you break from the previous line of thinking rather than trying to challenge it with something new and mostly irrelevant.

 

 

I’m also unconvinced by pure heavy bolter spam. The issue is the difficulty in wounding in the first place. Heavy bolters tend to be a somewhat lacklustre weapon to start with – with neither a huge number of shots or a great chance to wound. Double damage is great, but two times nothing is still nothing.

 

That is true of pretty much all of these lascannon variety of weapons too. Again, that's what the discussion was about. It's the value of heavy bolters compared to traditional AT from a strictly mathematical efficiency perspective. One shot can whiff. D6+1 damage is irrelevant if you can't hit. Which kind of dovetails into why these heavy bolter platforms are better choices...

 

 

Instead, I think I’d look at those weapons that have a decent number of shots at S7+, and which preferably already do 2+ damage. I bang on about Deredeos a lot but there’s also stuff like stalkers (the tanks, not the guns), Invictors, suppressors and maybe even impulsors to think about.

 

Now you're talking...but we don't actually need to make a choice here. Heavy bolters come on those platforms TOO. That's the whole point of selecting those types of platforms rather than going for heavy plasma incinerators, or lascannons, or whatever other AT junk the rest of the marines make do with. 

 

 

An Invictor only costs about 25 points more than a devastator squad with 4 heavy bolters but it has more shots, more than twice as many wounds and a big fist to punch things with. Impulsors are useful for loads of jobs and for Fists they’ve got 9 shots that are almost as good as heavy bolters (much better against anything that flies, worse the rest of the time).

 

The thing about going ham with heavy bolters embedded everywhere is that you can also have Invictors without it requiring you to specialize into a very narrow AT weapon option available on a limited selection of platforms elsewhere. 

 

 

So basically there’s a lot more to consider than “how many heavy bolters can I have?”. Heavy bolters are not automatically the best weapon – but in some situations they might be.

 

I think that grossly misrepresents what is being discussed here, but...point taken, I guess?

Edited October 24, 2019 by Lemondish

[BitsHammer]

I compared 4 vs 4 because it's the most you can fit in a single unit of devastators. 8 vs 4 is two units versus a single unit.

 

I know everyone wants the HB spam to be good, but a good list is a balanced list. Mix weapons of different types to have the greatest flexibility. If anything our bonuses allow us to be more effective with less effective weapons, but shouldn't be counted on to solve all of our problems.

 

I spent some time thinking about it and I think we should have gotten +1BS versuses vehicles and buildings in the devastator doctrine instead. IF are a chapter of well disciplined, accurate firepower and it would have fit us better.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Fulkes

[Lemondish]

This is where it can be hard to mathhammer out some stuff, I think the conclusion we can all come to is that our supplement made the heavy bolter a better weapon and deserves some reconsideration. I personally have invested more into the weapon and have been seeing some good results with it, even before using the supplement. But i am sure here in a month or so we are going to be seeing some IF lists making the top tables and they will have more heavy bolters than we have seen before in other marine lists.

 

 

Didn't really seem to be that hard to mathhammer considering it was done in the post you just quoted. 

 

 

I compared 4 vs 4 because it's the most you can fit in a single unit of devastators. 8 vs 4 is two units versus a single unit.

 

I know everyone wants the HB spam to be good, but a good list is a balanced list. Mix weapons of different types to have the greatest flexibility. If anything our bonuses allow us to be more effective with less effective weapons, but shouldn't be counted on to solve all of our problems.

 

I spent some time thinking about it and I think we should have gotten +1BS versuses vehicles and buildings in the devastator doctrine instead. IF are a chapter of well disciplined, accurate firepower and it would have fit us better.

 

Yes, a good list is a balanced list. Filling it with specialist weapons that are poor against a variety of targets isn't going to achieve your aim of a balanced list on the table, though. Not when you don't have to make that choice. 

 

Using high RoF weapons, especially things like heavy bolters, on platforms that can stack those types of weapons, is going to net you a far more flexible and adaptable package than being forced to take two different specialized units to do the same job that one IF unit can, provided they're equipped with bolt weapons. That 4 man lascannon unit is horrid against infantry. The heavy bolters? They're having a great time. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Lemondish

[Mandragola]

It looks like there’s considerable agreement here really. Sorry if I’ve been attacking a straw man.

 

On cost comparisons, i think you do have to consider the base cost of the model even when it’s the same model. It’s not a 10 point gun vs a 25 point gun, it’s a 105 point unit vs a 165 point unit - vs all kinds of other stuff. It’s a question of how many wounds you can do with 110 points, not 40.

 

Comparing just the costs of the guns tells you what’s the best option for a devastator squad, but not the best option overall. As some people have identified, the issue is rarely a straight question of what gun to take, because obviously every unit has limits on which guns it has access to.

 

I’ve got a specific question I’d be interested in, which is an either/or question for heavy bolters. Should planes take them, or go with skyhammer missiles? I think the bolters might be the better option but I’m not sure.

Edited October 24, 2019 by Mandragola

[Happy-inquisitor]

I compared 4 vs 4 because it's the most you can fit in a single unit of devastators. 8 vs 4 is two units versus a single unit.

 

I know everyone wants the HB spam to be good, but a good list is a balanced list. Mix weapons of different types to have the greatest flexibility. If anything our bonuses allow us to be more effective with less effective weapons, but shouldn't be counted on to solve all of our problems.

 

I spent some time thinking about it and I think we should have gotten +1BS versuses vehicles and buildings in the devastator doctrine instead. IF are a chapter of well disciplined, accurate firepower and it would have fit us better.

 

 

If you play a game format which balances by number of models/units on the table then the lascannons are worth consideration, they are a bit better vs vehicles and a lot worse vs infantry. This logic applies to power level games.

 

If you balance your games by points then that logic does not apply and the marginal increase in damage from the lascannons in no way justifies their much higher cost. The HB devastators are significantly more cost-effective in points games than the lascannon devastators at anti-tank fire and their superiority in anti-infantry is greater.

[BitsHammer]

 

I compared 4 vs 4 because it's the most you can fit in a single unit of devastators. 8 vs 4 is two units versus a single unit.

 

I know everyone wants the HB spam to be good, but a good list is a balanced list. Mix weapons of different types to have the greatest flexibility. If anything our bonuses allow us to be more effective with less effective weapons, but shouldn't be counted on to solve all of our problems.

 

I spent some time thinking about it and I think we should have gotten +1BS versuses vehicles and buildings in the devastator doctrine instead. IF are a chapter of well disciplined, accurate firepower and it would have fit us better.

 

 

If you play a game format which balances by number of models/units on the table then the lascannons are worth consideration, they are a bit better vs vehicles and a lot worse vs infantry. This logic applies to power level games.

 

If you balance your games by points then that logic does not apply and the marginal increase in damage from the lascannons in no way justifies their much higher cost. The HB devastators are significantly more cost-effective in points games than the lascannon devastators at anti-tank fire and their superiority in anti-infantry is greater.

 

Mathematically, even without rerolls, the Plasma Cannon still trumps both the HB and Lascannon versuses vehicles, it's also good against Monsters and elite infantry.

 

Basically I feel like everyone is focusing too hard on trying to double up on the rules and failing to see what else works and has the flexibility we need in the army.

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

Mathematically, even without rerolls, the Plasma Cannon still trumps both the HB and Lascannon versuses vehicles, it's also good against Monsters and elite infantry.

 

 

Basically I feel like everyone is focusing too hard on trying to double up on the rules and failing to see what else works and has the flexibility we need in the army.

 

 

Well if you are going to use plasma cannon without rerolls good luck to you brother. How that squad survives its own shooting for more than a couple of turns is a mystery to me and that is even without to-hit penalties being taken into consideration.

 

Plasma cannons are suicidal vs flyers when overcharged and their damage falls off a cliff when not overcharged. That is why I don't like them. If it was not for the overheating I agree they would be pretty good.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

Mathematically, even without rerolls, the Plasma Cannon still trumps both the HB and Lascannon versuses vehicles, it's also good against Monsters and elite infantry.

 

 

Basically I feel like everyone is focusing too hard on trying to double up on the rules and failing to see what else works and has the flexibility we need in the army.

 

 

Well if you are going to use plasma cannon without rerolls good luck to you brother. How that squad survives its own shooting for more than a couple of turns is a mystery to me and that is even without to-hit penalties being taken into consideration.

 

Plasma cannons are suicidal vs flyers when overcharged and their damage falls off a cliff when not overcharged. That is why I don't like them. If it was not for the overheating I agree they would be pretty good.

 

You can easilly get rerolls, the point was we have a better option that is easilly taken.

 

And Flyers are one example of why you diversify your weapon loadouts.

[Happy-inquisitor]

 

You can easilly get rerolls, the point was we have a better option that is easilly taken.

 

 

And Flyers are one example of why you diversify your weapon loadouts.

 

 

Yes but flyers are one of the reasons why I want to diversify towards more bolters.

 

You are guaranteed two hits on a natural 6 regardless of negative modifiers. You can literally be at -4 to hit (yes, this is a thing with Eldar flyers) and you still score 2 hits per natural 6. If you have a chapter master your expected number of hits never falls below ~60% with bolt weapons.

 

To be fair i don't mind having one plasma cannon in a devastator squad which can use the signum to not blow itself to pieces every game.

[BitsHammer]

Based on community complaining I could see us getting the nerf hammer next. To the point that I emailed the FAQ team and brought up if they change Legacy of Dorn making it a +1 to hit for heavy weapons against buildings and vehicles would still let the army do more damage while making better use of lower volimw of fire weapons.

 

Basically if they're going to change it, I'd rather see them lean into the marksmanship aspect of the chapter over somethibg like adding that we only do extra damage on a wound roll of a 6.

[Mandragola]

I don't think that Imperial Fists need a nerf. The book's not yet out though, so we'll have to see how they get on in real games.

 

That said, I don't particularly like the flavour of the super-doctrine. I think it buffs the wrong category of weapons. The fluff says that Fists favour single-shot accurate weapons like lascannons, but the buff has the opposite effect - improving heavy bolters, assault cannons and flamers.

 

Something like +1 to wound those targets, or possibly all targets (as it's a much smaller buff) with heavy weapons would be more appropriate, I think.

[DesSaboteur]

Based on community complaining I could see us getting the nerf hammer next. To the point that I emailed the FAQ team and brought up if they change Legacy of Dorn making it a +1 to hit for heavy weapons against buildings and vehicles would still let the army do more damage while making better use of lower volimw of fire weapons.

 

Basically if they're going to change it, I'd rather see them lean into the marksmanship aspect of the chapter over somethibg like adding that we only do extra damage on a wound roll of a 6.

 

What is there to nerf? Its a rule that already is halfway useless because no one fields buildings and the other half is against vehicles that some armies dont field either. And its only a plus one to damage. This is besides the fact that the supplement still hasn't released yet. This ability is not a game changer but rather a specialty that some opponents will have to think about when playing against the IF

[BitsHammer]

A lot of players are complaining it kills mechanized armies and makes playing any vehicle less durable than a knight useless.

 

I'm not claiming they're right, but that hasn't stopped GW from nerfing stuff anyways.

[Happy-inquisitor]

A lot of players are complaining it kills mechanized armies and makes playing any vehicle less durable than a knight useless.

 

I'm not claiming they're right, but that hasn't stopped GW from nerfing stuff anyways.

 

Ah, complaints based on zero games played. Not sure anyone will pay the slightest attention to that, its just what normally happens when a new codex is anything other than trash tier.

 

I see nothing in IF that makes me think they will hit the scene with the sort of splash that IH did. If that is just because I have totally missed all the problems then it will all come out over then next month or so and I will learn.  The HB/stalker leafblower style list could be really annoying but so far I have not seen a decent way to make it mobile or resistant to being bad-touched in combat without sacrificing its core points efficiency so it's just a rather tedious slow moving gunline archetype. 

 

Seigebreaker cohort might be a problem, if anything will be an obvious problem I think that will be it. I personally think that can be mostly fixed by making the mortal wounds proc on an unmodified 6 to wound. We should wait for the post-publication FAQ to see if they are already on that.

[Mandragola]

I can certainly see siegebreaker cohort being a problem. Combined with the new tank hunter strat you can put an absurd number of mortal wounds on a target. A unit of 6 centurions could all but automatically kill a knight, and seriously threaten to drop two of them.

 

I think it's possible that Fists will auto-win against certain vehicle-heavy archetypes. I saw un-nerfed IH take down an 8-flyer list in 3 turns and Fists could be even more dangerous. But without the durability of IH it becomes a roll-off for first turn. That's not the sort of game anyone wants.

 

I don't know if that will happen of course. Hopefully not.

[jeremy1391]

A lot of players are complaining it kills mechanized armies and makes playing any vehicle less durable than a knight useless.

 

I'm not claiming they're right, but that hasn't stopped GW from nerfing stuff anyways.

I’m thinking we Fists are the hard counter to iron hands.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Incursors are probably best for IF. Centurion HB are dope.

[BitsHammer]

I've been over the rules and our options a few times, and I have to say that like the Salamanders I don't think IF fit a pure Primaris build. Maybe in the future they will but the loss of a lot of the older Marine stuff like Centurions leaves me feeling like it becomes an army that struggles to cover its gaps. Edited October 25, 2019 by Fulkes

[NatBrannigan]

Quite surprised to see the calls for nerfs for the supplement actually, I think it looks to be about the same level as other supplements myself, probably one of the weaker ones (so still one of the best armies in the game…) maybe less reliant on one or two gimmicks like some others but it’s only the Seigebreaker detachment that looks obnoxious. I had assumed that would be going away since some parts have been put into the

Supplement and some left out though? As a mainly Guard player I’m far more afraid of how effective IF bolters can be than a boost to killing tanks.

 

The main Marine codex could do with a few Nerfs for sure, but we’ll have to wait for CA for those. I also wouldn’t mind staying in Devastator Doctrine to cost a CP each turn (apart from the 1st), which would encourage moving through the Doctrines, punish the armies whose main Doctrines are available from turn 1 (a huge advantage) and help out the Supplements that want to be in Tactical or especially Assault.

 

For weapons, I’ve got a few Heavy Bolters in my list for sure, and they’re ok against vehicles in Devastator Doctrine, but It’s probably worth keeping some classic Anti-tank in a list as well for when you move to Tactical.

[Mandragola]

If there's a problem (and I'm not sure there is) it's to do with a rock-paper-scissors quality to the supplement - not because it's insanely powerful overall.

 

There are certain builds that Imperial Fists will kill off very quickly. Basically anything mech-heavy is in real danger when our damage against them is so dramatically increased.

 

I have quite a bit of experience of this +1 damage mechanic. At the LGT I ran knights and I took a Krast Crusader with the relic that gives it +1 damage against stuff with 10+ wounds (also 3 other knights + rusty 17). It did massive amounts of damage to people and contributed a lot to me going 5:0 at the event. Replicating that across a whole army does sound very strong.

 

I was pretty pleased when I heard what our rule was. But it does risk erasing stuff. In general the shooting power of leafblower lists can be pretty extreme at the moment and I don't think that's a good thing for the game. Nobody wants games decided by the roll for first turn.

[Utter Polux]

 

 

 

 

I compared 4 vs 4 because it's the most you can fit in a single unit of devastators. 8 vs 4 is two units versus a single unit.

 

I know everyone wants the HB spam to be good, but a good list is a balanced list. Mix weapons of different types to have the greatest flexibility. If anything our bonuses allow us to be more effective with less effective weapons, but shouldn't be counted on to solve all of our problems.

 

I spent some time thinking about it and I think we should have gotten +1BS versuses vehicles and buildings in the devastator doctrine instead. IF are a chapter of well disciplined, accurate firepower and it would have fit us better.

If you play a game format which balances by number of models/units on the table then the lascannons are worth consideration, they are a bit better vs vehicles and a lot worse vs infantry. This logic applies to power level games.

 

If you balance your games by points then that logic does not apply and the marginal increase in damage from the lascannons in no way justifies their much higher cost. The HB devastators are significantly more cost-effective in points games than the lascannon devastators at anti-tank fire and their superiority in anti-infantry is greater.

Mathematically, even without rerolls, the Plasma Cannon still trumps both the HB and Lascannon versuses vehicles, it's also good against Monsters and elite infantry.

 

Basically I feel like everyone is focusing too hard on trying to double up on the rules and failing to see what else works and has the flexibility we need in the army.

Sorry to keep coming back to your math but that is also wrong. Plasma Cannons are better for IF than Lascannons but Heavy Bolters cause more damage than both...based on points this would compare 5 HB to 4 PC.

 

For the points I don’t think you’ll find many weapons better than the heavy Bolter in a fists army. You may not like that, you may feel it doesn’t suit the fluff, but it is a matter of fact. If you are a WAAC player you will be spamming heavy bolters centurions...IMO.

 

I don’t think they should be making any changes or nerfs to fists at all. They are not that much stronger than pre supplement. If we were talking about another way that fists could have been designed then perhaps re-rolling damage might have been a consideration if you wanted help making lascannons better. But I kinda prefer the rules they have now.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Utter Polux

[BitsHammer]

Don't just look at the points costs of the gun, look at how you're putting it onto the table too. I was comparing Devastator loadouts. You're saying I should have compared two devastator units against a devastator unit plus a tac squad, which seems a bit silly.

 

And I'm pretty far from WAAC. The idea of heavy bolter spam is the least interesting build I think anyone could imagine and is so fundamentally swingy against high toughness (hope you like enjoying only wound 1/3 lf the time!) that I could never enjoy actually playing it.

 

Rerolling damage doesn't make Lascannons better since you still need to hit amd wound with them first. With a single shot that meana you're not averaging that much out of them without some kind of buff to hitting, and possibly wounding (or at least rerolls).