Category Archives: rules and tactics

Imperial Guard Artillery

Posted on by
Photo & model by Forge World.

Photo & model by Forge World.

Matt was pondering on artillery pieces to add to his Valhallan villains, so I thought I’d offer up my comments.

Options are:

  • Basilisk: Incredible range (240″) and great strength (9 AP3)
  • Medusa: Ok range (36″) and amazing strength (10 AP 2 or 1 depending on shell)
  • Colossus: Great range (240″), good strength (6 AP 3), ignores cover
  • Griffon: Solid range (48″), ok strength (6 AP 4), re-rolls scatter

Once you’re committed to using some artillery I’m not sure it’s possible to go really wrong with this decision, except for the Basilisk. It’s a shame, because I like the look of the Basilisk the most with its long barrel, but with a 36″ minimum range it really doesn’t make sense except on a *big* Apoc table.

I’ve seen Kiril make excellent use of the Colossus. The AP 3 with no cover saves on a Large Blast marker makes it a Marine killer par excellence. The Medusa also sounds impressive, but personally I think it’s less terrifying. It’s maybe good for working over Terminators (hint, hint), but generally the boards Matt and I play on have a good amount of terrain. Given that, I’m not sure it’s as useful as the Colossus. Certainly I fear the latter much more.

The Griffon though is probably a good safe bet. Previously I didn’t really realize it is so much cheaper than the others, and I’m generally a big fan of bodies over fancyness. The other guns don’t seem unnecessarily fancy, but the reduced cost of the Griffon yields up a whole additional full Veteran Squad, or another squad and a half of normal grunts. If you’re trying to soak up points I think the others are definitely credible, but there’s a lot to be said for simply having more guys out there soaking up wounds.

Another big point to me in Matt’s particular case is that he tends to play on his (awesome) 4×4, Warmachine styled boards rather than more traditional 6×4 40k boards. On a 4×4 the 24″ minimum range of the Colossus could really crimp your style; even on a 6×4 it’s tight, and requires parking the gun in a far corner, ripe for being outflanked. The 12″ minimum of the Griffon is a lot more reasonable for smaller boards.

In any case, remember that Ordnance Barrage weapons (so, everything here except the Medusa’s shells) cause a Pinning check with a -1 modifier to Leadership if they cause any unsaved wounds. Doesn’t sound like a big deal, but I think that’s actually significant. They could potentially achieve almost as much, particularly against MEQs, just by pinning units as they do by removing models. Certainly I’ve had important units held at a stand still from continual pinning wounds, with significant game effects.

Notes on Ruins Rules

Posted on by

Recently I encountered two occasions of seasoned players treating ruins incorrectly. Mostly I chalk it up to erroneously remembering back to 4th edition, but the ruins rules do admittedly require a lot of good sportsmanship and reasonableness. They even contradict themselves in places, for example noting that measurements should be done from base to base although every example and rule in the section measures from anywhere in the model (coherency) or in the abstract along the 2D plane (templates). In any case, it’s worth recapping a couple points about ruins:

  • Players should agree beforehand whether the ground floor of the ruin is area terrain or not, particularly if it doesn’t have a base (the rulebook defaults to no in this case). Personally I think it makes the most sense to treat the ruin’s entire base as difficult and area terrain if it has one, but I often encounter players who only wish to treat the area inside the virtual perimeter of the ruin walls themselves as such.
  • One of the biggest points of contention or incorrect assumptions I frequently see is whether or not ruin walls are impassable or simply difficult. The rulebook defaults to the latter, but many players and groups default to models not being able to pass through them. This is an important point that should be clarified at the start of any game, as it can dramatically change movement around the board.
  • Unless players agree otherwise, when moving in a ruin, you don’t move models the straight line 3D distance to where you want them to go. Instead they move in a sort of z-axis Manhattan distance, over the horizontal component, and then up the vertical distance. This is made very clear on page 83 in the big book. So, for example, to assault a model over two inches looking down on the table top and up a level (three inches), a model would have to make a difficult terrain roll of 5 or better. Levels should be assumed to be 3″ tall unless players agree otherwise.
  • Models can only go onto a level in a ruin if they can physically fit there, and even then some models such as beasts and bikes cannot go up levels. However, models can assault models even if they cannot physically be placed in base to base, provided they could otherwise make the distance. For example, if it has the distance to move up the level but does not fit, a model could be put directly under a model on the next level down and be assumed to be in base to base.
  • Barrage weapons always hit the highest level under the marker’s center hole after scatter. When firing template and non-barrage blast weapons you must declare a level that they’re targeting.In all cases, only models on that level may be hit by the weapon, though casualties may be removed from anywhere in the unit as usual. With template weapons, you generally may pick the same level or the one above or below the firing model, however, skimmer, jump infantry, and jetbikes may target any level. Note that the rulebook shows a template being measured purely in the 2D plane above the model, indicating that it does not need to lose those precious inches going up or down a level.
  • All Independent Characters and Monstrous Creatures have Move through Cover, so they roll 3D6 when moving through ruins on their own (or with units that also have Move through Cover).

Again, ruins require a fair bit of sportsmanship to deal with well but it helps for everyone to know the current rules to begin with, and to talk for a moment at the start of each game and make common assumptions explicit. Cover values, ruin bases, and moving through walls are the three things I ask about first before doing anything else in each match.

Theoryhammer: Assault Cannon vs Cyclone Missile Launcher

Posted on by
Hurr, hurr, youssa gonna die!

Hurr, hurr, youssa gonna die! (GW photo)

A notable aspect of my meta-gaming over the past couple months has been debating whether or not to phase out my Terminators. Sometimes they’re super effective. But they’re frequently hard to get into place, particularly as safe Deep Strike locations are typically limited on the terrain-heavy boards I usually play on, and smart opponents will take down Drop Pods with Locator Beacons before the Terminators arrive from Reserves. Often the Terminators are left just out of useful range as they huff and puff, running around the battle after Deep Striking, trying to catch up to their targets. I’m not super interested in meching up into Landraiders to deliver them, so this is a problem.

As part of that train of thought, I’m considering shifting my Terminators from a Deep Striking offensive unit into a static, hard group of defenders around a home objective. Under that plan, Terminators would deploy just forward of likely inbound paths, focus on shooting, and then step out to block any incoming push in order to stall it well forward of claiming the objective. Alternatively, the Terminators would hang out right around the objective and be in place to guard against outflanking units and those damn Space Wolves Scouts (which I believe can enter from your table edge).

As part of that, I’m thinking about quickly rigging up some sort of Cyclone Missile Launcher for one of my Terminators (not having one on hand), and replacing the squad’s Assault Cannon with that. I like the Assault Cannon, but it’s a legitimate question as to which is more useful. One way to start breaking this down is by the squad’s intended primary targets: Are they for killing vehicles, or infantry?

For vehicle hunting, the tradeoffs are fairly interesting. Four strength 6 shots with the Assault Cannon versus two strength 8 shots with the Krak Missile. It’s not super obvious which is better. Obviously, the Krak Missile has a chance to take down AV 14 vehicles, which the Assault Cannon just doesn’t. However, more realistically these guys would probably be shooting at light and medium vehicles. Rhinos, Chimeras, and Dreadnoughts are the ubiquitous examples there, so let’s look at them.

  • Rhinos (AV 11 front/side):
    • Assault Cannon
      • 4*2/3 chance to hit (BS 4) = 2.667 hits
      • 2.667 * 1/6 chance to penetrate = 0.444 penetrating hits
      • 0.444 * 1/3 chance to wreck or explode = 14.8% chance of destroying AV 11
    • Cyclone ML
      • 2*2/3 chance to hit(BS 4)= 1.333 hits
      • 1.333 * 1/2 chance to penetrate = 0.666 penetrating hits
      • 0.666 * 1/3 chance to wreck or explode = 22.2% chance of destroying AV 11
  • Chimeras and Dreadnoughts (AV 12 front):
    • Assault Cannon works out the same as for AV11 due to Rending:
      • 4*2/3 chance to hit(BS 4)= 2.667 hits
      • 2.667 * 1/6 chance to penetrate = 0.444 penetrating hits
      • 0.444 * 1/3 chance to wreck or explode = 14.8% chance of destroying AV 12
    • Cyclone ML
      • 2*2/3 chance to hit(BS 4)= 1.333 hits
      • 1.333 * 1/3 chance to penetrate = 0.444 penetrating hits
      • 0.444 * 1/3 chance to wreck or explode = 14.8% chance of destroying AV 12
  • Predators (AV 13 front):
    • Assault Cannon:
      • 4*2/3 chance to hit(BS 4)= 2.667 hits
      • 2.667 * 1/9 chance to penetrate (AP of 6 plus 2 or 3 rending, probability 1/6 times 2/3) = 0.296 penetrating hits
      • 0.296 * 1/3 chance to wreck or explode = 9.9% chance of destroying AV 13
    • Cyclone ML
      • 2*2/3 chance to hit(BS 4)= 1.333 hits
      • 1.333 * 1/6 chance to penetrate = 0.222 penetrating hits
      • 0.222 * 1/3 chance to wreck or explode = 7.4% chance of destroying AV 13

Assuming all of that is correct, the Cyclone is a little bit better at popping Rhinos, but they’re equivalent against Chimeras and Dreadnoughts, and Assault Cannons are slightly better at Predators. That’s a tough call on which is better, though I’d give a slight edge to the practical utility and likelihood of popping Rhinos with the Cyclone ML.

For infantry killing it’s again a tough call. Straight-up against each other, I’d say the Assault Cannon is the clear winner. Even with the Cyclone’s blast template with the Frag Missile and placing two of them, I would not expect to routinely get three or four hits on target as I would expect from the Assault Cannon. Most opponents are just too good about keeping their squads spread out and in a nice linear formation you’re likely to scatter off. However, the Cyclone doesn’t replace the Terminator’s Storm Bolter and both can be fired at once, so at the same range as the Assault Cannon the model wielding the Cyclone will probably get the same number of hits.

Confusing the issue even further, the Assault Cannon has a heavier punch in general, particularly as compared to the Storm Bolter, but the Cyclone ML can get those two strong Krak Missile hits in. The Cyclone ML also has almost double the range.

All in all, I think all of the above means the Cyclone gets the slight edge, but these are very comparable weapons. I consider that an example of good game design—two equivalently costed options that don’t have a clearly stronger option, but favor two different styles of play and work best against slightly different enemies.

For me at this particular moment that means I can de-prioritize modeling work on a Cyclone ML for this weekend at ‘Ard Boyz in favor of more critical tasks. If I wind up rolling my existing Assault Cannon Terminator, it won’t be a big weakness or disadvantage comparing to fielding a new Cyclone Missile Launcher.