Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
What do folks think is the best HS choice a Russ or Basilisk? Or maybe a few more HW platoons to support your command and perhaps infantry platoon choices?
As with each unit type, they all have plus and weaknesses. Some people will swear blindly by one thing that others can't get to work.
Personally, I feel that you get enough heavy weapons from HQ Support Squads and command squads/line squads if you so wish. Another heavy weapons platoon leads to lots of very static fire, and if you're enemy moves around fire lanes, you're in trouble.
So for heavies, my set up is usually 2 Leman Russes and a Basilisk/Medusa Siege Gun (Imperial Armour piece). Sometimes I'd go 3 Leman Russes, just as it can be an intimidating sight. "Massive Strength, MEQ armour denying pie plates" are one of the Imperial Guards greatest assests - so I don't leave home without at least 3!
It depends on your army type/play style. I think that the Russ MBT is the most all-purpose choice.
There is no such thing as a plea for innocence in my court. A plea for innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty.
- Inquisitor Lord Fyodor Karamazov
It depends on what your play style is and what you play against. IF you play against you play against alot of armies that have small numbers but are MEQs then the tanks are better because of better ap, but if you play against horde army then i would go with heavy platoons.
I agree with qsd that the Russ MBT is the most suited to handle all comers i would suggest giving it 3 heavy bolters.
The most dangerous men in the world are the ones who have nothing to lose.
I think having Heavy Weapon platoons has a lot of potential. Just so many guns you can field. Yet thats more models. I still want to do all infantry but end up taking armor so my deployment isn't next to each other. I find most of my opponents take a large hill terrain piece and place it in front of my line on one section. If I deploy behind the section I will get tied into CC and units will safely pour through that.
If I don't deploy behind it, they will get into CC later, but when they do I'm clumped together. Heavy Weapons don't help to solve this problem.
I vote for the HWPs. This is an efficient way to get plenty of heavy weapons into your army. Or if you want you can surprise your opponent by deepstriking and being slaughtered...
Just kidding. I am working on a 1500 point list right now that includes 11 heavy Bolters, 9 Mortars, 6 Autocannon, 1 missile launcher 4 Meltaguns and 10 Flamers? How is this possible? Heavy Weapons Plattons. There are 140 models too so its not like I had to sacrifice numbers either...
Most actual missions rely on movement to go get objectives etc. HW platoons are very good, but clearly don't move, and as Imperial Smart said, you can get enough HW squads from the HQ squad to provide static firepower. For that reason, the Leman Russes (esp Demolishers with their higher armour values) seem to work better to go and get the objectives /support your deep strikers, while line infantry and HQ HW squads provide the covering fire.
Plan B is not automatically twice as much explosive as plan A
I think HWPs aren't widely used for a couple of reasons. The first is that you can get almost a full HWP through the command HQ. Second, they're somewhat redundant since you tend to want the same thing with your line squads. Third, and this is why I personally think you don't see them a lot, it's a model issue. Putting out 9 platforms can get co$tly fast, and even if you decide to do some modeling tricks to cut down on cost, it's time consuming.
People tend towards tanks because there's already a ton of troops out there and the tanks really do add a new element, they're easier to set up and play, more tactics involved, and the leman russ and basilisk are just awesome vehicles. (Demolisher is ok.)
It's not that they're bad, it's just more of the same of what you already have in your army, and most players want something new after putting together and (possibly) painting 100 IG.
I never really feel the urge to take a heavy weapons platoon.
Its all down to two things for me, deployment and the lack of ability to move and fire.
As they are a heavy support choice, they tend to be placed on the table first, so your opponent will be fully aware of where a large section of your heavy weapons are from the start, and can react accordingly.
Heavy weapon teams attached to your HQ, on the other hand, are placed as part of the HQ setup, which is awesome as a large chunk of your opponents army should already be in place!
A leman russ will also be placed first, being heavy support also, however it can be placed in cover (if available), as it possesses the most importing ability in the game - it can move and shoot! Gives you a lot more versatility.
This is not to say that heavy weapon platoons are bad, I'm sure they have their own strengths, such as safety in numbers etc... (wheras a tank can die from 1 shot), and they may suit certain army styles, however I personally would prefer to field a Leman Russ.
"Pickles, the drummer, doodily doo. (Ding-dong, doodily, doodily, doo.)"
Also, you should google "garfield minus garfield". Awesome.
I like a mix, so my heavy support is usually one HWP and two russes/demolishers. I tend to do this because I like to keep my line squads cheap and mobile so my only heavy weapons are either vehicle mounted (sentinels, russes, hellhounds) or are found in the HWP or command platoon. Of course I use Light Infantry to deploy them last so they get a good position.