PDA

View Full Version : Shooting phase, What if



megatrons2nd
24-11-2011, 05:59
What if both players made their shooting attacks in each shooting phase like both getting attacks in the assault phase. I think this might make games a bit more tactical as movement would play a more important role in the game. It would also bring the balance between the number of CC attacks and RC attacks closer.

Pyriel
24-11-2011, 06:08
um... NO. the game is already shooty-enough as it is. TYRANIDS and BLACK TEMPLARS are forced to play shooty.
eldar harlequins are considered sub-par.

this is not a sci-fi game; this is a space fantasy game, a la star wars. we WANT a heroic close combat element. currently, competitive armies are all about how many high-strength and mid-strength shooting they can fit in a list. and they use ONE hq, the one that gives the most army-wide benefits, ignoring the hq's cc potential, as cc sucks in 5th.

ever seen lysander in a list that won a hardcore tournament?
no, i dont think so.
ever seen a fighty captain instead of a buffer librarian?
course not.

i hate to imagine what a space wolves army with 3 missilelauncher-tauting Long Fang Squads would do if these guys kept firing both turns (15 missiles per player turn... 30 missiles per game turn!!! 150+ missiles per game!) , or an Imperial Guard army with so many tanks with guns, or a Blood Angels army with 6 predator battle tanks...
thats just sick.

megatrons2nd
24-11-2011, 17:29
um... NO. the game is already shooty-enough as it is. TYRANIDS and BLACK TEMPLARS are forced to play shooty.
eldar harlequins are considered sub-par.

this is not a sci-fi game; this is a space fantasy game, a la star wars. we WANT a heroic close combat element. currently, competitive armies are all about how many high-strength and mid-strength shooting they can fit in a list. and they use ONE hq, the one that gives the most army-wide benefits, ignoring the hq's cc potential, as cc sucks in 5th.

ever seen lysander in a list that won a hardcore tournament?
no, i dont think so.
ever seen a fighty captain instead of a buffer librarian?
course not.

i hate to imagine what a space wolves army with 3 missilelauncher-tauting Long Fang Squads would do if these guys kept firing both turns (15 missiles per player turn... 30 missiles per game turn!!! 150+ missiles per game!) , or an Imperial Guard army with so many tanks with guns, or a Blood Angels army with 6 predator battle tanks...
thats just sick.

Funny, it seems that assault armies do better in my area. You get more attacks each game turn, don't have to deal with cover/use cover to prevent death as you close, can assault on turn 2 thus removing shooty units capabilities, and have vastly superior morale check modifiers. What is the difference for 150 missiles a game when a single model can get that many attacks in close combat a game with high strength and power weapon status.

And I don't want to move my models for two turns doing nothing and then leaving them sit in CC for the remainder of their time on the board. I want to move, I want to be active in what they are doing. Simply rolling the dice and picking up dead models is boring. I prefer to participate in the game rather than rolling dice like Yahtzee to determine a winner.


"Hardcore" tournaments are not the best way to base the game since they tend to use little terrain at all on the board. Find tournament that actually uses the 25% terrain coverage and then use that as a basis. My area uses this and that is probably why assault armies do better.

theunwantedbeing
24-11-2011, 17:34
What if both players made their shooting attacks in each shooting phase like both getting attacks in the assault phase. I think this might make games a bit more tactical as movement would play a more important role in the game. It would also bring the balance between the number of CC attacks and RC attacks closer.

Since the game is based round alternating turns where both armies don't get to shoot/move in both turns this would cause a major change in how the game is played. I'm not sure this would be for the better.

Also, how do you figure it would work out?
The player whoose turn it is shoots first, then the opposing player?
Inititative order?
Something else?

terradax
24-11-2011, 17:37
Ever tried the Close Quarter Mission from GW's website? the rule there is to swap shooting phase, so you shoot after your oppenent has moved and vice versa. That makes the game more tactical in my oppinion! :)

Pyriel
24-11-2011, 18:05
megatrons2nd, terrain doesnt change that an average hardcore competitive army has 8-12 vehicles at 1500 pts. a cc army cant deal with that, a shooty one can.

i hate to imagine trying to beat an imperial guard army with 6 chimeras and 4 leman russ ( a very average armylist configuration, chimeras not even full of melta-totting veterans) if shooting happens both turns. i mean, the IG vehicle spam is ALREADY one of the top-3 armylists in the tournament scene.

maybe people actualy bother with foot lists where you play, or more hybrid lists, or there are less players using top-tier codices. but due to vehicles being CLEARLY overpowered, and used at two-digit numbers in most armylists, close combat armies have it tough already. give shooting another advantage and they become absolutely non-feasible.

ForgottenLore
25-11-2011, 02:04
we WANT a heroic close combat element.
No WE don't, at least not such a strong one, a little bit would be OK.

But what you are describing isn't a shooting heavy meta, it is a VEHICLE heavy meta.

megatrons2nd
25-11-2011, 03:22
Also, how do you figure it would work out?
The player whoose turn it is shoots first, then the opposing player?
Inititative order?
Something else?

Maybe make Heavy weapons fire only once per game turn, but remove the move or shoot issue. Relentless of course would ignore this limitation. However ordnance/barrage weapons would never be able to be fired more than once per game turn.

I would probably make it the active player shoots first, followed by the opposing player.

orkmiester
25-11-2011, 10:04
megatrons2nd, terrain doesnt change that an average hardcore competitive army has 8-12 vehicles at 1500 pts. a cc army cant deal with that, a shooty one can.

maybe people actualy bother with foot lists where you play, or more hybrid lists, or there are less players using top-tier codices. but due to vehicles being CLEARLY overpowered, and used at two-digit numbers in most armylists, close combat armies have it tough already. give shooting another advantage and they become absolutely non-feasible.

:wtf::rolleyes::eyebrows:

true in some ways 'terrain doesnt change that an average hardcore competitive army has 8-12 vehicles at 1500 pts' my view (watch out) MSU spam should banned with some armies it is A) bland and B) downright stupid.

I could understand it from an Eldar perspective, but with marines... i would nerf it- Guard are a completley different probelm however so i'll dodge that one:shifty:

vehicles though are NOT op when used in more 'acceptable' numbers- i'm sure we are all aware of the transport cost arguments etc....(which is part of the problem...)

Back on topic:angel:

what you suggest dosen't work with the way 40k has been designed over the years. Is the current meta vehicle heavy? yes, i would answer 'generally' that is. You seem to experience some of the 'exceptions' i have no problem with the amount of CC attacks as they are designed to take out infantry not tanks, of course if they are in cc with one of your tanks- whoops someone wasn't looking...

Pyriel
25-11-2011, 11:53
*shrugs* yeah, the imperium would waste tons of resources to create geneticaly enhanced supersoldiers (space marines) but wouldnt bother giving them transports... and they would also force them not to play MSU lasplas(=the way all modern armies operate; "pack as many machineguns, grenade launchers and antitank to a squad as possible, keeping riflemen to a bare minimum". "infantryman" has stopped meaning "rifleman" since ww2, LOL).

oh, yeah; msu should be banned for marines, naturaly geneticaly enhanced supersoldiers wouldnt be disciplined enough to operate in smaller more flexible units, and it isnt worth it to give them tons of wargear.

please stop this fallacy. no way would a commander field his units in bulky 10-man squads with just a couple of good weapons, the rest armed with rifles. NO.WAY. not geneticaly enhanced supersoldiers, not even mere infantrymen fight this way anymore.

YES, i realise 40k is "world war 1 ... recycled IN SPACE". but thats not what space marines represent. thats what IG represents.

sure some stuff are lame, but complain about the proper stuff. cause guess what- real armies TRY to have identical units, and every "model"(soldier) TRIES to look the same as the others. and they TRY to have small, flexible units with tons of fancy weaponry.hey TRY to have what we call saturation in 40k (i.e. recon-only units, mech-only units, infantry-only units, etc. they spam the same types of units in their large formations just like 40k competitive players do).

thinking "X is bland /overpowered, it should be banned" leads to the banhammer called ETC, aka(imho) "the 40k special olympics".

EDIT:

i TOTALY support that many ppl want to just play fluffy friendly games, hence they need bans/houserules/even comp scores. but the fact that these games are friendly ALLOWS them to use unofficial houserules or homebrewed systems anyway. demanding that these types of rules and bans become official/part of tourneys means disrespecting the right of competitive players to have their own type of game.

i would normaly be on the fluffy players' side, being part-fluffy part-competitive myself. but WHY is it that competitive players respect the fluffy players' right for friendly games, but fluffy players dont respect competitive players' right for sports-like competitive games? thats unfair.foul, guys.

boogaloo
25-11-2011, 19:13
Since the game is based round alternating turns where both armies don't get to shoot/move in both turns this would cause a major change in how the game is played. I'm not sure this would be for the better.

Also, how do you figure it would work out?
The player whoose turn it is shoots first, then the opposing player?
Inititative order?
Something else?

Maybe make a seize the initiative roll every turn? the play with the original highest roll would have the initiative for every turn, unless the seize roll was succesful? Just spitballing, seems kinda cool.

megatrons2nd
26-11-2011, 03:24
i have no problem with the amount of CC attacks as they are designed to take out infantry not tanks, of course if they are in cc with one of your tanks- whoops someone wasn't looking...

The basic troops choices guns are typically designed to take out infantry. The problem is you get 1 shot a game turn(two if your lucky), and CC get 2-3 attacks a game turn, depending on if they charged, 4-5 if they have two close combat weapons, and some units can get up to 9 in a single phase. Granted the few that can get that high are expensive and typically a character.

Bunnahabhain
26-11-2011, 10:57
Better solution to the disparity between attacks and shooting...

Roll for deployment, winner chooses if to deploy 1st or 2nd.
Roll for first turn, winner chooses
Player A moves, player A shoots
Player B moves, Player B shoots
Both players resolve combat
Roll for 2nd turn, winner chooses
repeat

megatrons2nd
27-11-2011, 04:02
Better solution to the disparity between attacks and shooting...

Roll for deployment, winner chooses if to deploy 1st or 2nd.
Roll for first turn, winner chooses
Player A moves, player A shoots
Player B moves, Player B shoots
Both players resolve combat
Roll for 2nd turn, winner chooses
repeat

That is better than my idea. However how would you do the actual charge move?

Baaltor
27-11-2011, 04:22
I think the idea that the game is shooting biased is prepostrous. Many armies can assualt in the first turn of the game now, and most in the second. In a single game turn, a power fist gets 5 attacks from charging, where as a lascannon will get a comparable amount all game. The people I see complaining about shooting being too powerful are usually people who play all melee or melee focussed armies.

I play a balanced army, which means when people bring a fighty army I play shooty, and the reverse, yet because melee is so prevalent everyone I know thinks play a shooty army! Yeah, vehicles are too inconsistant, and too undercosted, but that doesn't making shooting over powered.



we WANT a heroic close combat element. currently, competitive armies are all about how many high-strength and mid-strength shooting they can fit in a list. and they use ONE hq, the one that gives the most army-wide benefits, ignoring the hq's cc potential, as cc sucks in 5th.

ever seen lysander in a list that won a hardcore tournament?
no, i dont think so.
ever seen a fighty captain instead of a buffer librarian?
course not.

i hate to imagine what a space wolves army with 3 missilelauncher-tauting Long Fang Squads would do if these guys kept firing both turns (15 missiles per player turn... 30 missiles per game turn!!! 150+ missiles per game!) , or an Imperial Guard army with so many tanks with guns, or a Blood Angels army with 6 predator battle tanks...
thats just sick.

First, I gotta say I DON'T want a heroic CC game, I like the idea of mighty and foolhardy men getting gunned down and blown to bits even if they could take Jaime Lannister on themselves, I think it really suits the mood and gives people a proper sense of scale.

I can't help but feel that most of those complaints are not addressing the proper issues. Captains are not chosen because of their price tag (notice the difference between the better stated necron lord and tyranid prime's price tags? Pricing a captain well might change things), lack of synergy ability and in general their just an overpriced sergeant with more weaknesses. Yeah they can take a couple more power weapon swings, but for 32 points so can the sergeant, and he keeps on clubbing regardless of what thunder hammer pasted his mates. Lysander is a powerful, competitive choice that's very flexible and resilient, I don't know why you'd complain about him.

If long fangs are so broken with their 15 missile launchers, why is a DE list with 30+ lances not even more so? The problem isn't the fangs, it's the razor backs that have unbalanced vehicle rules and still get a discount for having less transport capacity for some reason.

Sami
27-11-2011, 09:02
If long fangs are so broken with their 15 missile launchers, why is a DE list with 30+ lances not even more so? The problem isn't the fangs, it's the razor backs that have unbalanced vehicle rules and still get a discount for having less transport capacity for some reason.

Because those 15 missile launchers take up only 3 FoC slots, have two different fire modes, and can split fire (so 6 enemy targets can be hit using 3 FoC slots). The 30 DE lances are spread out across the entire army, have varying range (18" or 36", both of which are shorter than missile range IIRC) and have no alternative anti-infantry fire mode.

I hate to say this, but your experience does not match how tourneys and the like play out. Just because your local area has a lot of CC doesn't mean CC is powerful - you might want to try adjusting your list to pure gunline and see how quickly it deals with CC lists while still being pretty damned effective at taking out hybrid and other gunline lists (unless you're playing a CC-based codex and are trying to turn it into a hybrid one).

And lol Lysander is not competitive when stacked up against the other choices available in the codex..

Pyriel
27-11-2011, 10:05
lets get something straight. i didnt post while pple *actualy discussed houseruling* because i truly, deeply believe its their right to have any type of game they want.

I also respect your view on wanting a game where heroism and cc fails. note, however, that warhammer is NOT that-read novels and you'll see it is more Star Wars than Star Trek. more "jedi pWn stormtroopers" than "phasers pWn all". That said, you too have a right to play your kind of game, and thats why Imperial Guard and Tau exist-armies where posturing heroics will get you killed. that is great; you can play one of those armies, and IG especialy are very powerful at this point, totaly one of the 3 strongest armies, so no arguments there either.see? everyone has their place.

NOW, about the "is cc competitive?" idea.

let us see what types of lists have done well in hardcore competitive environments (in friendly games, you dont bring your a-game and most powerful list possible, so being defeated usualy means not trying too hard)

Imperial Guard: leafblower chimera-based (TREMENDOUS effectiveness. pure shooting, absolutely no cc element)
Imperial Guard: leafblower valkyrie-based (again, pure shooting)

-Grey Knights: Psykoteaz (purifiers razorspam MSU and psyriflemen dreads spam; can cc, but main strength is shooting)

-Space Wolves; Tony K's Open NOVA winning list and Adepticon winning list had lots of grey hunters on rhinos or lasplas razorbacks and some Long Fang packs. again, very powerful shooting. although this list can perhaps cc well.

-Space Marines: Thunderbubble (a pure gunline protected by 10 assault terminators. the termies are on foot cause they are just bubblewrap, not meant to go for the charge. Granted, Black Templars probably do this specific list better, they rarely try it)

-Space Marines: mech Fast N' Slow (more easily called "bikers & landspeeders & predators & riflemen dreads; PURE shooty)

Dark Angels: Doublewing (terminators with cyclone missiles supported by melta bikers. shooting, with some very small cc element)

Eldar: mechdar shuricannon spam (6-7 vehicles & 6-9 vypers that can put out about 90 str 6 shots a turn on the move. shooty)

Dark Eldar: Venom spam (what the name says; again, tremendously lots of str 6 shots a turn. shooty)

Black Templars: gunline termiebubble (a specific missile spam list that uses lame FAQ to produce about 26 missiles per turn on the move, and has about 13 vehicles. 26 missiles; pure shooty)

Blood Angels: Blood Rodeo (bikers & assault terminators/jumpers; hybrid cc and shooty)
Blood Angels: Jumpers (what the name says; YAY, a cc list!!!!)
Blood Angels: AV-13 spam (LOTS of predators and vindicators. shooty)

Tyranids: T 6 R US ( a list with more than 50 wounds at toughness 6; lots and lots of of hiveguard, some tyrannofexes and tervigons, and often a fexstar with 36 twinlinked str 6 shots. VERY good anti-vehicle shooting, plus some anti-infantry cc, but not very good. the list's inability to kill infantry reliably is its downfall. however, tyranids lists had a mere 11% less win percentage than space wolves, meaning these lists can be competitive)

-Tau and Orks had decent win percentages, but they brought lists too bland(tau) or varied (orks) to explain. suffice to say, the Tau ones were shooty (big surprise)

we can easily see some trends here:
-NO assault vehicles used. even the armies that used terminators didnt use them.
-a terrifying predominance of shooting armies.
-most importantly, all these lists have one thing in common: they aveage, on 40kmetrics, a HUGE DRPG rating (dead rhinos per turn(edit: game, sorry guys. dead rhinos per game), most of them capable of putting out an average of 55 penetrating hits on rhinos in 5 turns on average. many had a MUCH higher count, especialy Space Wolves, Black Templars and Leafblower, these lists reach or surpass 80 penetrating hits per game. most or all of this via shooting.

you saw that?... some of the best lists have, as a characteristic "shooting so good that if you bring 10-15 vehicles, they can take them ALL down".

if you think your shooty lists dont fare well against cc, just try upping the ante in competitiveness and list composition. use redundancy and duality, spam the best units again and again, etc.

if you want to play fluffy lists, then the game's rules arent your problem, but your own restrictions. if so, it is PERFECT to put houserules (i.e . restrictions on assault armies)

The Marshel
27-11-2011, 12:20
snip

well that was probably one of the most interesting post I've read on warseer for a fair while, kudos!

Bunnahabhain
27-11-2011, 16:58
That is better than my idea. However how would you do the actual charge move?

Sorry, missing a line...

Roll for deployment, winner chooses if to deploy 1st or 2nd.
Roll for first turn, winner chooses

Player A moves, shoots, declares and moves assaults/ other random moves during assault phase.

Player B moves, shoots, declares and moves assaults/ other random moves during assault phase

Both players resolve combat, and any random post combat bits
Roll for 2nd turn, winner chooses
repeat

megatrons2nd
29-11-2011, 03:44
NOW, about the "is cc competitive?" idea.

let us see what types of lists have done well in hardcore competitive environments (in friendly games, you dont bring your a-game and most powerful list possible, so being defeated usualy means not trying too hard)

Imperial Guard: leafblower chimera-based (TREMENDOUS effectiveness. pure shooting, absolutely no cc element)
Imperial Guard: leafblower valkyrie-based (again, pure shooting)

-Grey Knights: Psykoteaz (purifiers razorspam MSU and psyriflemen dreads spam; can cc, but main strength is shooting)

-Space Wolves; Tony K's Open NOVA winning list and Adepticon winning list had lots of grey hunters on rhinos or lasplas razorbacks and some Long Fang packs. again, very powerful shooting. although this list can perhaps cc well.

-Space Marines: Thunderbubble (a pure gunline protected by 10 assault terminators. the termies are on foot cause they are just bubblewrap, not meant to go for the charge. Granted, Black Templars probably do this specific list better, they rarely try it)

-Space Marines: mech Fast N' Slow (more easily called "bikers & landspeeders & predators & riflemen dreads; PURE shooty)

Dark Angels: Doublewing (terminators with cyclone missiles supported by melta bikers. shooting, with some very small cc element)

Eldar: mechdar shuricannon spam (6-7 vehicles & 6-9 vypers that can put out about 90 str 6 shots a turn on the move. shooty)

Dark Eldar: Venom spam (what the name says; again, tremendously lots of str 6 shots a turn. shooty)

Black Templars: gunline termiebubble (a specific missile spam list that uses lame FAQ to produce about 26 missiles per turn on the move, and has about 13 vehicles. 26 missiles; pure shooty)

Blood Angels: Blood Rodeo (bikers & assault terminators/jumpers; hybrid cc and shooty)
Blood Angels: Jumpers (what the name says; YAY, a cc list!!!!)
Blood Angels: AV-13 spam (LOTS of predators and vindicators. shooty)

Tyranids: T 6 R US ( a list with more than 50 wounds at toughness 6; lots and lots of of hiveguard, some tyrannofexes and tervigons, and often a fexstar with 36 twinlinked str 6 shots. VERY good anti-vehicle shooting, plus some anti-infantry cc, but not very good. the list's inability to kill infantry reliably is its downfall. however, tyranids lists had a mere 11% less win percentage than space wolves, meaning these lists can be competitive)

-Tau and Orks had decent win percentages, but they brought lists too bland(tau) or varied (orks) to explain. suffice to say, the Tau ones were shooty (big surprise)

we can easily see some trends here:
-NO assault vehicles used. even the armies that used terminators didnt use them.
-a terrifying predominance of shooting armies.
-most importantly, all these lists have one thing in common: they aveage, on 40kmetrics, a HUGE DRPG rating (dead rhinos per turn(edit: game, sorry guys. dead rhinos per game), most of them capable of putting out an average of 55 penetrating hits on rhinos in 5 turns on average. many had a MUCH higher count, especialy Space Wolves, Black Templars and Leafblower, these lists reach or surpass 80 penetrating hits per game. most or all of this via shooting.

you saw that?... some of the best lists have, as a characteristic "shooting so good that if you bring 10-15 vehicles, they can take them ALL down".

if you think your shooty lists dont fare well against cc, just try upping the ante in competitiveness and list composition. use redundancy and duality, spam the best units again and again, etc.



What is/was the terrain used for these battles? I am going to bet it was the minimalist type I've seen at so many GW official events. Which of course will skew any results in favor of a shooting based army. We play in our local tournaments the proscribed 1/4 of the board covered with terrain and then spread it out.

Pyriel
29-11-2011, 11:23
especialy in the NOVA format, the terrain was 25% of the table, AND as if that wasnt enough, a LoS-blocking terrain piece was always on the centre just to keep things interesting.

now, megatron2nd, I understand what you talk about; if i build "fluffy white dwarf-style" lists for 7-8 different armies, usualy assault will have it easy, because boltguns/rifles suck as i've said so many times.

but the MERE MOMENT I start "mechanized MSU lascannon/plasmagun/meltagun spam", then rifles become the MINORITY of shooting over heavy weapons spam.an army like that can easily pack 20+ heavy weapons and 10 + special weapons and 12+ vehicles in a simple vanilla marines list(mid-tier) at 1750 points, assault armies just roll over and die. BT and Space Wolves gunlines can easily put out 25-30 missile launchers(let alone other weapons!!!) at these points levels. Elite army with 30-50 models? have fun getting almost half your force wiped out at turn 1. horde army? 25-30 blasts, and again have fun. Like i said, some additional weapons too. what kind of assault army can withstand that?... best he can do is wipe out a unit or two(this assumes he manages to destroy the units' transports despite immense supression fire-not easy) with the shooting survivors and get wiped out afterwards.

of course, with better luck and better tactics this can change; but we are talking "army lists as if used by equal commanders" here, right? ;)

a good note is that the current prevalence of shooting has made TAU, of all armies, semi-competitive, despite their outdated codex. the only reason they aint competitive fully is that they are so outdated some other armies outshoot them (vanilla marines, Dark Eldar sometimes, and more often imperial guard leafblower/space wolves long fangs spam/templars tankhunter missile spam)

megatrons2nd
30-11-2011, 02:38
especialy in the NOVA format, the terrain was 25% of the table, AND as if that wasnt enough, a LoS-blocking terrain piece was always on the centre just to keep things interesting.

now, megatron2nd, I understand what you talk about; if i build "fluffy white dwarf-style" lists for 7-8 different armies, usualy assault will have it easy, because boltguns/rifles suck as i've said so many times.


What is the NOVA format? I'm not familiar with that one. We play several different armies in my area with only a couple that play the same army, and a few who play 2+ armies. The local lists tend to be very assault oriented so my typical Shoot/Maneuver armies are overwhelmed very quickly.

The local game boards run a variety of terrain types/setups. We typically have a board that is city fight, one with lots of blocking hills, one that is grass fields; streams; and woods, and one that has a bit of all three previous boards. Some boards are better for the assault army and some the shooty army. Most of our boards use about 50% blocking terrain, which is a fair balance in most cases. It is the truly fast assault armies that are dominating our area(Blood Angels, and Dark Eldar). Though The shooting based IG army does well.

Pyriel
30-11-2011, 07:28
i would be honestly, seriously happy if you gave me the chance to review your army list. OR, if you want, just tell me your codex and I'll build a list just to showcase the type of armies that do well and you can grab ideas/modify.

when i was a teen, I THOUGHT i was a very good chess player.for about a year, I played chess all the time,even with some adult relatives, and usualy won. then i played chess with a group of guys that played like only 3-4 games a month, but they spent HOURS EACH DAY reading chess tactica books and memorising tactics of the best players of the world. despite being much more experienced, i was obliterated; i was a "good player", they were HARDCORE.after some weeks, I stopped chess and went to sports, but years after(sometime before i went to the militasry) i took up 40k, and found the exact same difference; the hardcore competitive element is completely different.

what i want to say is, there is NO shame in asking for advice regarding your army list; everybody does, including the *best* hardcore players out there. "two minds are better than one" ;)

Monk813
01-12-2011, 06:01
Because those 15 missile launchers take up only 3 FoC slots, have two different fire modes, and can split fire (so 6 enemy targets can be hit using 3 FoC slots). The 30 DE lances are spread out across the entire army, have varying range (18" or 36", both of which are shorter than missile range IIRC) and have no alternative anti-infantry fire mode.

I hate to say this, but your experience does not match how tourneys and the like play out. Just because your local area has a lot of CC doesn't mean CC is powerful - you might want to try adjusting your list to pure gunline and see how quickly it deals with CC lists while still being pretty damned effective at taking out hybrid and other gunline lists (unless you're playing a CC-based codex and are trying to turn it into a hybrid one).

And lol Lysander is not competitive when stacked up against the other choices available in the codex..

:) If you're ticked about that, you must hate IG! 1 FOC can fit 21 missile launchers that can target 7-11 enemy units per turn. And if I have enough officers and roll my Ld well enough I can make them all TL in cases of vehicles and MC, or force the enemy to ignore cover saves in cases of MEQ and horde.:cheese:

Freman Bloodglaive
01-12-2011, 09:24
Thanks Pyriel, my own Space Marine biker army is of the fast and slow type. Practically twin-linked everything. The only concessions to melee are the captain and a couple of dreadnoughts are still carrying their close combat weapons.