[Moxie]

Which of these would be the better anti-infantry configuration?

3x XV8 suits each with TL Burst Cannons and Drone Controllers (2 drones each) = 24 TL S5 AP5 Shots, 9 Models, 195 pts

or

3x XV 8 suits each with Burst Cannons, Missile Pods and Multi trackers.* Leader with HW drone controller (2 drones) = 24 S5 AP5 (only 2 TL) and 6 Missile shots, Only 5 models, 204 pts.

Did I interpret the rules correctly on these? Are they legal?

Cheese factor?

Which would be better against commonly seen infantry?

[Malefiz]

Originally Posted by Moxie

Which of these would be the better anti-infantry configuration?

3x XV8 suits each with TL Burst Cannons and Drone Controllers (2 drones each) = 24 TL S5 AP5 Shots, 9 Models, 195 pts

or

3x XV 8 suits each with Burst Cannons, Missile Pods and Multi trackers.* Leader with HW drone controller (2 drones) = 24 S5 AP5 (only 2 TL) and 6 Missile shots, Only 5 models, 204 pts.

Did I interpret the rules correctly on these?* Are they legal?

Yes, those configs are possible. Personally I'd prefer the second one. it can operate on higher range (gotta love range), which works especially well with hit and run tactics and can potentially help your crisis suits to earn their points back earlier in the game. Plus I personally feel twin linked weapons are a waste at BS3, statistically you improve 1,5 hits on average to 2,25 hits per burst cannon (3 shots) fired as opposed to the 2,5 hits on average when using 5 shots (i.e., burst cannon and missile pod). And that's merely statistics, it also means that the first configuration can only score 3 hits, while the other has the potential to hit 5 times. Don't underestimate the dice gods.

Yes, I left the drones out of this calculation on purpose. While they add a 0,56 hit and their pinning ability actually is neat, I feel they're better used in seperate squads and should serve your crisis teams as protection shields rather than additional firepower. Your suits have enough devastation potential by themselves which you partially deny by using drone controllers. If your enemies use a lot of weaponry that can instant kill your suits or target them preferrably with such weapons (even if you might feel that this is undeserved* ) consider swapping the leaders drones (which, imo, you definitely should take) with shield drones. Still, use cover as your primary defense.

Cheese factor?

If you're gonna be called cheesy for adapting to an enemy by equipping your crisis suits properly, tell the offender to quit playing 40k instantly and proceed by ignoring him. You don't go hunting flies with rifles, nor bears with flyswatters.

Which would be better against commonly seen infantry?

Depends on what is 'commonly seen' in your circles. In general I'd say you have to face heavy infantry (meaning, high save like Necrons, SMurfs, Chaos) more often than massed light infantry. Might be just me, but if this is the case then plasma rifles are pretty much a must take for your crisis suits, don't leave the armoury without them. If your opponents are hugging their armour too tightly you might even consider taking a fusion blaster as secondary weapon; I had to do so several times against the local Space Marines, and they learned their lesson.

[Wargamer]

Originally Posted by Malefiz

If you're gonna be called cheesy for adapting to an enemy by equipping your crisis suits properly, tell the offender to quit playing 40k instantly and proceed by ignoring him. You don't go hunting flies with rifles, nor bears with flyswatters.

Actually, adapting to your opponent is cheezy!

Pre-writing a list, with no knowledge of your opponent's force, and picking good hoard-killing weapons is fine. Finding you're going to fight Orks, then picking all hoard-killers, is powergaming.

[Moxie]

Awesome response, thanks Malefiz.

Your response makes perfect sense statistically and offensivly but what are your thoughts about the model count and being able to stay in the game longer?* Do you think that the 4 extra models might actually, in most circumstances, allow the unit to stay on the table longer and therefore eventually produce more damage?* Or is the best defense a better offense in this case?

Also, I'm planning to compliment this group with another group of crisis that are equiped with plasma and missiles for going up against heavier armor.* The above mentioned burst suit unit is in the league for the nid and IG players.

[mace]

Just a note, where did you get 24 shots from? twin linking means you can re-roll misses, not shoot twice as much. therefore:
the first team gets 5 shots per suit (3 burst cannon TL + 2 drone shots TL) making 15 shots from the whole squad.
the second team gets 3 burst cannon shots per suit, 2 missile pod shots, x 3, + 2 twin linked shots from drones.. again where do you get 24 shots from? you only have 1 burst cannon per suit (3 hard points, 2 are taken up by missile pod and multitracker) - giving you 9 burst cannon shots, 6 missile shots, and 2 TL drone shots.

I'm hoping you've worked out the point values right, because if you have, both squads are sortof equal, the first squad can wipe out a fair bit of infantry, whereas the 2nd squad can do damage to a lesser extent, but with missile pods at greater range AP/Str, i think the 2nd one is better..

[Hunter]

I quite like the second set up, don't underestimate having those gun drones about, if you're up against an infantry based enemy, take all you can get.

On the topic of cheese.
Are White Dwarf battle reports Cheesy? They know the opponent will be taking a specific army orks marines etc, and they then tailor their force to kill that opponent. I see nothing wrong with this, but if you knew what army and what troops your enemy was going to take, and then took units specifically to deal to these, then that would be cheesy.
But then there are as many definitions of cheesy as there are 40K players.

[Wargamer]

Originally Posted by Hunter

On the topic of cheese.
Are White Dwarf battle reports Cheesy? They know the opponent will be taking a specific army orks marines etc, and they then tailor their force to kill that opponent. I see nothing wrong with this, but if you knew what army and what troops your enemy was going to take, and then took units specifically to deal to these, then that would be cheesy.
But then there are as many definitions of cheesy as there are 40K players.

Generally, an army should be written to cope with any army. Thus a Marine army packing all Heavy Bolters is cheezy, solely because they have negated Anti Tank and high AP weaponry, which a balanced force will need.
The only time "tailoring" is acceptable is when your opponent is bringing Flyers. In this case, you should be forwarned, allowing you to put in an AA weapon. However, taking 3 would be overboard.

Basically, if the army is written specifically to defeat the opponent, it's powergaming.

[Malefiz]

Actually, adapting to your opponent is cheezy!

Point taken, I agree. Poor choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to say change your army list once you get to know what you're up against. We're not talking about min/maxing an entire army into a specific Race X-counterarmy here, but making a single counterunit that can deal with this threat. Crisis suits are one of the most customizable units in the game and can be equipped to face about anything, therefore are imo the best unit selection when you need something to deal with factors the rest of your army cannot. I'm not saying use these crisis configurations only when facing army X, rather have them in all the time and use them as your firepower mainstay when you actually encounter enemy X. There's no excuse for not having a balanced army.

In addition, I haven't seen a single player who's lists would not have been influenced by his commonly faced opponents over the time. If your area is SMurf territory, then a well balanced list will most likely stand a chance of winning, but suffer more losses than you should because of your relative lack of anti-HI. As people expand their armies, they take thoughts like "will this unit be useful against what I'm usually playing against?" into consideration, especially casual players. To me, that's not cheesy; that's smart.

Besides, you realize the true powergamers fairly quickly, so if you feel you're accused undeservingly, make a real counter-list to take out his type army and hand the list to him, maybe even proxy it in for a battle. He should realize the differences within an instant.

what are your thoughts about the model count and being able to stay in the game longer?* Do you think that the 4 extra models might actually, in most circumstances, allow the unit to stay on the table longer and therefore eventually produce more damage?* Or is the best defense a better offense in this case?

I don't think that 4 extra drones mean much in terms of survivability. They're comparedly low toughness "creatures" and will fail their saves as often as they won't. If you've made the mistake (or were forced into the situation) to put your crisis suit squad in the open where they take barrages of enemy fire (and most enemies will take that opportunity) they're toast in no time (heck, I've had entire gun drone squadrons taken out in a turn by imperial guardsmen.) You usually produce more damage by dealing it earlier (i.e. on higher range, mpods), not by using inferior weaponry that you attempt to protect with rather mediocre means (which the drones imo are). Yes, offense is a better defense here... and don't underestimate the 6'' assault move, it's been the primary lifesaver to my crisis suits so far in every game.

[Wargamer]

Originally Posted by Malefiz

In addition, I haven't seen a single player who's lists would not have been influenced by his commonly faced opponents over the time.

Then you haven't seen my Guard army.

Over half my infantry Heavy Weapons are "anti-hoard" weapons. About half (maybe more) are high AP. Then again, when half the options are high AP, it's understandable.

My most-used tank, bar the Leman Russ, is a Griffon (AP 4). I could take a Basilisk, but I prefer the Griffon.

It can be hard to win sometimes (especially on a 4x4 table, vs assaulty armies), but I don't care. If my opponent doesn't have the decency to make a fair, balanced army, he isn't worth playing.

If your area is SMurf territory, then a well balanced list will most likely stand a chance of winning, but suffer more losses than you should because of your relative lack of anti-HI. As people expand their armies, they take thoughts like "will this unit be useful against what I'm usually playing against?" into consideration, especially casual players. To me, that's not cheesy; that's smart.

Sadly, "power creep" is a common occurance. For me, it works in reverse.

Normally, I play Marines. My IG tanks, however, are getting weaker. My latest three tank purchases both lack Marine-Killer weapons as their main gun, and only one has an AP 3 or higher weapon out of the lot!

As a rule, if both players don't have fun, you've done something wrong. If you're in it to win, you shouldn't play at all.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Wargamer

As a rule, if both players don't have fun, you've done something wrong. If you're in it to win, you shouldn't play at all.

Hear hear! Even in tournaments, if you and your aoppnent aren't both having fun, then change your style of playing.