A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
Nymphomanius
Shas'Saal
Posts: 524
Contact:

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#19 » Feb 02 2018 07:41

Shas'O R'Kai wrote: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


But if you're shooting CIB at guardsmen you've either already won because you have nothing better to shoot it at, or you should be shooting at something else and are wasting shots, sure CIB is more versatile than BC but they have different roles, and 4 BC Commander + 4 gun drones will kill more GEQ and costs the same as 4 CIB Commander...

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

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#20 » Feb 02 2018 08:40

Nymphomanius wrote:
Shas'O R'Kai wrote: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


But if you're shooting CIB at guardsmen you've either already won because you have nothing better to shoot it at, or you should be shooting at something else and are wasting shots, sure CIB is more versatile than BC but they have different roles, and 4 BC Commander + 4 gun drones will kill more GEQ and costs the same as 4 CIB Commander...


So taking something sub-optimal just to be able to target Guardsmen? I'd much prefer to have 3 CIB commanders than 2 CIB plus a quad BC. Guardsmen are a chaff unit that can be cleared out by most of what we have. I think the points on a commander are much better spent taking out their power units, not the chaff. I think the QBC has a place in some lists if you want to go full alpha strike and retain durable anti-horde. Your point about the QBC commander being MUCH more durable than our infantry is a very good one, however I feel like the hazard does this better and I rarely if ever find myself in need of such horde clearing over what my infantry etc are already capable of doing. In a TAC list I'll never use a QBC over a Coldstar or CIB commander, but I could see myself taking it in a list where I know my opponent is Daemons/Any Aeldari.

I really really want to like the burst cannon, because a crisis team with all that dakka is so cool. But until it gets some sort of bonus (preferably something other than more shots) I can't see myself using it.

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

User avatar
Zadocfish
Shas'Saal
Posts: 70

Re: A(nother) case for Burst Cannons

Post#21 » Feb 02 2018 12:02

Arka0415 wrote:
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.


Yeah, but we aren't the only army that uses extensive deep-striking. A deep-striking Psyker and/or a unit of other anti-infantry can just drop 9" away and shoot to their hearts content. Orks can teleport when already on the board and so can Marines, and that's only the beginning. 'Nids and Eldar can both get across the board regardless of what terrain you put between yourself and them, for example. And Strikers are about the most "throwaway" unit we have; what do we have to screen them with?

I'm not saying that Strikers aren't useful. They're slightly more durable than Guardsmen, and more importantly any that survive turn 1 can actually do some real damage. More importantly, because they are a valid threat, they can draw attention and get your opponent's army into a bad position if they don't pay attention to your deep-strikers and suits, and when combined with sturdy stealth suit teams they can force target prioritizing that you can easily use to your benefit on your turn. They're perfect bait for Kau'yon.

But really, they aren't great for anti-infantry on their own. They just die too easily, and move too slowly, and they can't fall back and shoot, and they need a ton of support to work well.
I am a Christian.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: nix0n, Osocruel and 7 guests