A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
ROFLTau
Shas
Posts: 10

A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#1 » Feb 01 2018 11:34

(I looked a bit and didn't find a relevant discussion, if there is then please point me in the right direction)
Hello all,
Fusionmanders are great, but i think we tend to negect what else can be done with a BS2+ guy with 4 hardpoints. Specifically Burst Cannons, not normally put on commanders, (considered wasteful by most, it seems) but hear me out. The 16 shots should average about 12 hits, which is alright for killing GEQ, but why would you dedicate such an expensive unit to that job when you have fire warriors? Because they can't hit bull. The necessary markerlight support, or sheer number of extra fire warriors to get the same result costs more than the commander.
At this point I realize that's just where we are right now, with commanders being a jack-of-all-trades who's better at any task than the units dedicated to it. But still, i don't want to feel tied to fusionmanders forever.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 521
Contact:

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#2 » Feb 01 2018 11:42

The argument of 12 hits though is 12 firewarriors will get 12 hits at only 3" less range and more hits at 18-30" and 12 firewarriors is still 20 points cheaper than a 4BC Commander...

Also 9 gun drones gets 12 hits at 18" and even more with support and is even cheaper.

So sadly unless burst cannons fired more shots, like 8 each our drones or infantry does a better job of delivering high volume str5 firepower

User avatar
Beerson
Shas'Saal
Posts: 224

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#3 » Feb 01 2018 11:46

I will have to go back and check with index, but essentially, CIB or missile pod does the job better without wasting expensive platform and or utility
Also fire warriors are not THE BC alternative, gun drones are
Each gun drone is essentially BC on its own with a jetpack, wound, save, potential for 50% more shots (unlike BC) and ability to take multiwound off of your fusion commander
Since you want to field drones for ablative wounds anyway, bringing BC comander makes absolutely no sense

User avatar
Draaen
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 154

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#4 » Feb 01 2018 12:54

Cold star commanders get 2 support systems basically 2 burst cannons a missile pod and and a staggeringly high move. With an additional -1 to AP and guardsmen going from 5+ to 6+ saves so for guardsmen in the open you are equal to the burst cannon commander. Plus you have a missile pod with ATS benefits another support system and super speed. If you are looking for QFC alternatives it is a really effective alternative.

On paper there are better then 4 burst cannon commanders but I could see where being able to break up shots into 4 piece packets could be useful against MSU targets. Try it out and let us know how it works out for you.
All empires fall you just have to know where to push

User avatar
ROFLTau
Shas
Posts: 10

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#5 » Feb 01 2018 01:12

Mostly I am trying to get away from QFC, it just feels like a loophole exploit, as does relying on drones. Thare has to be other viable builds besides the the QFC, and im racking my brain trying to come up with something that's clever. (That and there has to be something out there capable of stripping the bubble wrap from enemy psyker characters turn 1, thats not a QFC's job.)

User avatar
Beerson
Shas'Saal
Posts: 224

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#6 » Feb 01 2018 01:30

QFC is not the only build, MP commander is good as well, thing is there is no point in using commander against BC targets, you usually have one or two commanders and you need to give them FB to remove vehicles/monsters/multiwound threats since there isn't viable alternative to use

If you don't need QFC I suggest using MP, CIB, or flamer crisis team if you only want to shoot GEQ

We don't need Commander to shoot GEQ since that's what the rest of our army does

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 521
Contact:

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#7 » Feb 01 2018 01:34

The only other weapons I like on my Commander is missile pod, call me old school (and if you're playing PL it's just as cost efficient as 4 burst cannons) but that long range high accuracy, though 3 missile pod and ATS might be better for elite infantry / light vehicles, primaris Marines would be terrified of him, without any assistance he will get 5 hits 3 wounds 2 failed saves 2 dead and again in PL games 5 primaris Marines cost the same as a commander :D

I do use Shas'o R'ymr but that is 90% because I love his model 10% because the combination of 8str4 attacks and a 3+ inv save in melee always catches people out

User avatar
ROFLTau
Shas
Posts: 10

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#8 » Feb 01 2018 01:40

Beerson wrote:QFC is not the only build, MP commander is good as well, thing is there is no point in using commander against BC targets, you usually have one or two commanders and you need to give them FB to remove vehicles/monsters/multiwound threats since there isn't viable alternative to use

If you don't need QFC I suggest using MP, CIB, or flamer crisis team if you only want to shoot GEQ

We don't need Commander to shoot GEQ since that's what the rest of our army does

The commander does it demonstrably more efficiently, is what im saying, if you're going to spam commanders, might as well have one for every occasion.

Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 521
Contact:

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#9 » Feb 01 2018 01:47

ROFLTau wrote:
Beerson wrote:QFC is not the only build, MP commander is good as well, thing is there is no point in using commander against BC targets, you usually have one or two commanders and you need to give them FB to remove vehicles/monsters/multiwound threats since there isn't viable alternative to use

If you don't need QFC I suggest using MP, CIB, or flamer crisis team if you only want to shoot GEQ

We don't need Commander to shoot GEQ since that's what the rest of our army does

The commander does it demonstrably more efficiently, is what im saying, if you're going to spam commanders, might as well have one for every occasion.


No that's just backwards, might aswel go for 4 flamers instead, as it stands 4 burst cannons on a Commander are just inefficient you shouldn't take one just because you can, for the same points just take 12 gun drones and give a quad CIB Commander a DC instead of 1 of the guns, it'll be less points and at 18" will average 24 hits, which is twice as many as quad BC Commander who's maximum hits is 16 vs 48 of 12 gun drones.

Or if youreally want a solo anti infantry suit get an xv9 with 2 DBBC and ATS might be less accurate and only slightly cheaper but atleast is ap-1 for all your shots and can bring 4 drones to assist 1 suit

(though if they released an xv9 Commander I would order 1 today :D)

User avatar
Zadocfish
Shas'Saal
Posts: 68

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#10 » Feb 01 2018 02:25

I found out at my first tournament recently that Mathhammer attack volume means surprisingly little in an actual game.

Not because of luck; because of durability. If you have a massive line of fire warriors at the top of turn one, and DON'T get the first turn, you will most likely not have said line of fire warriors when your turn starts. You will have like 5. They die MARGINALLY slower than Guardsmen, but cost significantly more because of their better gun. Because our gunlines only work for their point cost when close to a Fireblade, we are very weak to chain-reaction type psychic powers... and psychic powers in general, really.

Also they are weak to anti-infantry, and almost all basic infantry in every army has anti-infantry weapons. They just... die. And unlike with a suit-based anti-infantry platform, every single frail dude you lose loses you firepower.

Consider this: It takes the same exact number of Bolter hits (not shots fired, I'm only talking hits) to kill a Crisis Suit or a unit of Fire Warriors with the same point cost as a single Crisis Suit, but the Crisis Suit only loses firepower when it takes the last hit, which means that the use of Saviour Protocols on a Crisis team makes a HUGE impact on 2nd-turn firepower whereas there is no efficient way of mitigating the loss of firepower on a Strike team. And that's if you leave your Crisis suit team on the board for the first turn (which you usually do not want to do).

That's the sort of thing you can only learn on the table, not so much in Mathhammer points-per-wound numbers.

Now if that all applies to Crisis Suits, what does that say about Commanders? At double the wounds of a Crisis Suit for only 24 extra points, they're even more durable, and can use Drones for covering hits even more efficiently. More importantly, though, they, like Crisis Suits, can deepstrike, leaving them invulnerable to getting yanked off the board turn one. This means you retain firepower to use on your turn. Between the difference in durability and the increase in utility overall, a Commander with BC is not an especially inferior choice to bullet-fodder Fire Warriors for relatively similar firepower.
I am a Christian.

User avatar
Aspiring Commander
Shas'Saal
Posts: 70

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#11 » Feb 01 2018 02:34

From one of the best tau lists available from professional circuits (http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/up ... -2018-.pdf) another viable alternative for a commander is 3x airburst fragmentation launchers and an ATS.

3D6 shots that don't need line of sight, and with the addition -1AP make for interesting shooting :)
'We act as one, and united we cannot fall'

-Commander Shadowsun

User avatar
ROFLTau
Shas
Posts: 10

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#12 » Feb 01 2018 02:35

I was just doing the math one afternoon and thought i'd found something interesting, but maybe Beerson is right, and spending more money is the only way to win.

User avatar
Beerson
Shas'Saal
Posts: 224

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#13 » Feb 01 2018 03:19

Dunno what you mean by spending more money, MP commander or flamer crisis squad are both cheaper then BC commander per point (MP is more points and same money also same amount of bits and 3 crisis are cheaper then commander)

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 3194

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#14 » Feb 01 2018 06:27

Burst Cannons on Commanders are great options for killing infantry! The main reason why I don't recommend them is because most people do not have enough Commanders to justify fielding one- the first 3-4 Commanders (at least) in a list should probably be Fusion Blaster of CIB Commanders.

User avatar
StealthKnightSteg
Shas'Saal
Posts: 303
Contact:

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#15 » Feb 02 2018 04:16

Zadocfish wrote:I found out at my first tournament recently that Mathhammer attack volume means surprisingly little in an actual game.

Not because of luck; because of durability. If you have a massive line of fire warriors at the top of turn one, and DON'T get the first turn, you will most likely not have said line of fire warriors when your turn starts. You will have like 5. They die MARGINALLY slower than Guardsmen, but cost significantly more because of their better gun. Because our gunlines only work for their point cost when close to a Fireblade, we are very weak to chain-reaction type psychic powers... and psychic powers in general, really.

Also they are weak to anti-infantry, and almost all basic infantry in every army has anti-infantry weapons. They just... die. And unlike with a suit-based anti-infantry platform, every single frail dude you lose loses you firepower.

Consider this: It takes the same exact number of Bolter hits (not shots fired, I'm only talking hits) to kill a Crisis Suit or a unit of Fire Warriors with the same point cost as a single Crisis Suit, but the Crisis Suit only loses firepower when it takes the last hit, which means that the use of Saviour Protocols on a Crisis team makes a HUGE impact on 2nd-turn firepower whereas there is no efficient way of mitigating the loss of firepower on a Strike team. And that's if you leave your Crisis suit team on the board for the first turn (which you usually do not want to do).

That's the sort of thing you can only learn on the table, not so much in Mathhammer points-per-wound numbers.

Now if that all applies to Crisis Suits, what does that say about Commanders? At double the wounds of a Crisis Suit for only 24 extra points, they're even more durable, and can use Drones for covering hits even more efficiently. More importantly, though, they, like Crisis Suits, can deepstrike, leaving them invulnerable to getting yanked off the board turn one. This means you retain firepower to use on your turn. Between the difference in durability and the increase in utility overall, a Commander with BC is not an especially inferior choice to bullet-fodder Fire Warriors for relatively similar firepower.


I agree on this, this might not lean towards using a Commander with BC's as he needs to fulfil other roles, and I'm not a fan of Commander spam. But this is a good reason to field a XV8 squad with BC's. And that way you can leave your Fire Warrior squads minimal for back field objective holding (if you field them for the Battalion detachment), out of range of the enemy so they have to move forwards opening up more tactical options for us.

User avatar
Zadocfish
Shas'Saal
Posts: 68

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#16 » Feb 02 2018 04:22

Exactly. Though, I don't want to derail this into a "reasons that Crisis Teams aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be" thread. Really, the point is that our army can be run in ways that seem unintuitive to mathhammer calculations.
I am a Christian.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Vre
Shas'Vre
Posts: 3194

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#17 » Feb 02 2018 04:29

Zadocfish wrote:I found out at my first tournament recently that Mathhammer attack volume means surprisingly little in an actual game.

Not because of luck; because of durability. If you have a massive line of fire warriors at the top of turn one, and DON'T get the first turn, you will most likely not have said line of fire warriors when your turn starts. You will have like 5. They die MARGINALLY slower than Guardsmen, but cost significantly more because of their better gun.

This is why turn-one deployment is so key. Get your Fire Warriors behind LOS-blocking terrain, in cover, whatever it takes to stay alive. Plus screening can help, as most heavy anti-infantry is short-range.

User avatar
Shas'O R'Kai
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 138

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#18 » Feb 02 2018 05:29

I think another important thing to note, is that vs GEQ, a 3x CIB + ATS commander will outkill a quad burst cannon commander AND a 3x BC + ATS commander. The only thing a QBC/TBC + ATS will be better at killing is things like daemons who only have a 5+ inv save. It's actually a fairly decent pick against Daemons but probably sub-optimal vs most other targets. Sure the BC wielders are cheaper, but you've got an expensive platform which you should be making the most out of and the CIB's are just so much more versatile.

R'Kai
Playing with a short reach since 2007 :crafty:

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Elmendim, Jacket, Martensite, Vesa Kai and 12 guests