It seems that the heavy laser squad is horribly over priced, when compared to its lighter armoured countpart. for 35 points you gain +2 die on armour due to being type three and damage resistance but are rolling three die rtather than five and have only 3 per squad, making them often ineffective and fragile. When compared to other axis type 3 such as the hv flak gren (who only cost 26) they become a bloated ineffectual unit. I would like to hear anyone's opinion on the squad to see if anyone else has noticed this balance issue or if I have misjudged my opinion on my own game experiences.

Maladict said:

Heavy Laser Grenadiers also have longer range than regular laser grenadiers, and especially with a sustained attack, can put a HUGE dent in a walker, even a heavy walker. They can be pretty spectacular if used right.

I feel that all of the laser troops for the axis are over priced and seriously under ranged…Not having played tactics I thought they were going to be the only infantry with 24"

I have yet to use either of the laser troops in a warfare fight…I can see they can be great against Heavy vehicles, but so far everyone I know has 1 hvy, and they see those Lasers and they are going to stay away from them… No way I can get into range…

For general purpose I think that the Heavy Recon are better than the Heavy Laser…leave the Vehicles to my Ludwig…

I think the Heavy Laser Grenadiers are great. When you consider that you have a chance (even ifs a small one) of killing any armor on the battlefield (including a Heavy Walkers) with one lucky hit, I'd say they are not overpriced. I've had a HLG squad, down a man, slice through undamaged Allied walkers. I haven't played enough games to really start comparing point costs, but I think they are well worth having in your force.

as always with lasers, its all about the sustained attack. They perform well against most walkers and can really pour damage onto tier 3 infantary also. Still, 35 points is a lot.

I don't think they are bad at all. Armor 3 plus Damage Resilient means that if they find a good spot on the board with some cover, they should be pretty much invulnerable to enemy fire. Their lasers can kill anything on the battlefield unlike their armor 2 cousins, and have a longer range. All it takes is one solid roll and they will destroy any vehicle they shoot at. Heck, statistically 2 hits alone is enough to blow up any medium walker they see as it would do 6 wounds against only 4 armor dice. And even if a walker survives, It'll probably riddled with critical hits.

I'd have to voice my agreement with the 'pro' HLG contingent . . .

They can (and have) destroy a heavy in a single round of Sustained shooting, to the point where, in my last game with a heavy, the heavy poured all of its fire into that one squad . . . turns out an Axis heavy squad in hard cover is NOT completely immune . . . when they're getting hit with like 12 dice . . . But that left the rest of my flank time to scurry off to decent vantage points against other targets and his heavy was trapped and ineffectual for two turns while it tried to redeploy to where it could do more good.

And even if they avoid the squad . . . well then, you're controlling where he's going, which is an excellent outcome as well. That's a 36" diameter circle in which a Heavy walker won't want to Air Drop

Don't get me wrong . . . I'd LOVE it if they were cheaper . . . but I still have a hard time NOT putting them in any list I make.

If you look at them in a utility view they are far from the best unit in the Axis, but that doesn't mean they are overpriced as they are intended to be a very good anti-vehicle unit. I personally don't use them because in the games I play not many people are fielding a lot of walkers at the moment so I prefer to use the regular Laser grenadiers as they are awesome against infantry units. As everyone else has stated though the real trick to Laser units in general is sustained fire. You go from an average of 1 hit to 2 which adds two more dice into the equation and you should be getting around 3 total hits a turn. Now if that's against a walker that's 9 damage you just did and its going to lay some hurt on the table.

I think the regular infantry 2 laser grenadiers might be overcosted by 2 to 3 points but the heavies have been pretty devastating and get a lot of attention. I just recently had them melt two light walkers and then soak up another two rounds of blistering fire from an infuriated opponent. I could see them maybe being 32 points but I have no problem taking them at 35.

While were on the subject, whats the word on laser burn with these guys? If they roll one hit for 3 damage and roll another hit on the burn, is that plus one or plus 3?

Either way I keep my walkers well away from them until I've softened them up with some other units. If I played axis, I'd think theyre still worth it even at that cost.

its plus 3 Scott.

Maladict and I are regular players with each other (oh-er). My other half dispairs at the fact i spent too many nights up with him rather then her crowded into my living room writing up battle reports.

Generally speaking, with the tutorial that Maladict and I are in the process of writing for different units, Axis laser units really do require that they be fired on sustained actions to truely get the most out of them. They are costly, but often able to take on any short range threats, with the occasional blessing of huge damage output due to those repeated hits. While three inderviduals firing only gives odds of 1 hit, with sustained you can bump that up to 2, and even have a shot at the extra dice landing.

thankyou for all the replies. But I still believe my point stands. Yes i agree that laser weapons are amazing when sustained and using the hv laser against walkers is the only way to get the full potential out of them. however they are a specialist unit, only good against one type of enemy. Put them up against light or even worst hv infantry and they crumble. Because of their specialist nature do they deserve to be the most expensive type 3 infantry on the axis list? The greatest units in warfare are those that can diversify, and any opponent either avoid them with their walkers or destroy them with long range weapons. The heavy recon are also specialist vs infantry but arent as expensive. I agree they have a place in the army but they're rarely worth taking.

Maladict said:

They are a resilient armor 3 unit, in cover those are brutal. 4 saves + any possible cover bonuses is a hard unit to root out. Compound that with the ability to put hurt on things that are 3 times their points cost and they are very good and well worth their points. Like them or not and right or wrong, you're probably the first person I've seen that sees them in a bad light. They definitely are not in need of errata.

the joy of lasers Maladict is that it doesnt matter what type of infantary or armor you are shooting at you are almost aways rolling 1 for 1 against infantary and 1 for 3 against armor. Admitedly heavy infantary have a better chance of soaking said damage, but they arnt poor.

I think we may need to play test them next game to see if we cant change your mind. I know you've used them twice now, but im not yet convinced they are crap personally.

caecitas said:

Hmm. Up until I read this thread I would have also said that the Schwerer Lasers weren't worth the points. They are sort of a heavy anti-tank squad, though, as mentioned, and are more survivable than a Mk II Ludwig. As I haven't faced any super-heavies yet, I can't vouch for anyone's effectiveness against such a monster (although Angela with a sniper spotter will give one fits).

Maladict (I hope I got that right from memory) does have a point in that these grenadiers are more expensive than the Heavy Assault Rangers, who are, point for point, the most furiously effective troops on the entire table. (No pun intended on the 'furiously'; I only just now realized the comparison with Rhino, nee Nick Fury.) They can bound from cover to cover, maximizing their armor saves, and fling themselves at units which, for some other-worldly reason, can't respond by blasting them out of the skies (anyone ever been *****-shooting?), and deliver the most devastating volley of hit percentage available to any unit in the game, without the target benefitting from cover.

Under the circumstances, I would prefer some rules tweaking: Either raise the points of the Heavy Assault Rangers to, say, 40+, lower the points of the Schwerer Laser Grenadiers to, say, 25, or both. I believe that the overall points problem is that Dust Warfare is using the exact same points values as Dust Tactics, while the units are performing differently because of the different situations (Warfare has a lot longer comparative ranges, a lot more cover, and a lot more maneuverability than Tactics). Adjustments need to be made.

Warboss Krag said:

Pretty much all the points have changed from Tactics to Warfare

Warboss Krag said:

I would even say that the Red Devils may have a more useful gun in warfare since it ignores armor saves and gets 3 shots each vs both armor 2 and 3 guys. As far as jump goes, you can always react to their attack action by shooting back at them. And the best counter to any jump troops is putting a suppression marker on them. They all have pretty short range weapons, so if you make the unit choose between moving or shooting, it ends up not that great. Its one of the major reasons that I believe that Rhino and the Hammers are one of the worst Allied units. And I have no idea why you think the Reapers ignore cover. The majority of units in this game will always be in atleast soft cover because of the suppression rules along with Hit the Dirt.

Warboss Krag said:

Warfare and Tactics use vastly different points values and stat lines accross the board. In addition, the ranges are actually shorter in Warfare. If one square is supposed to translate to 6", then a rifles range of 4 in tactics should equate to 24" of range in Warfare, not 16". A Ludwig and Pounders range of 36" in Warfare is infinitely lower than their unlimited range in Tactics. Similarly, I would say units are far more maneuverable in tactics than they are in warfare. Vehicles can only change their facing by so much per turn, and most units will only get to move 6" at most due to suppression. Having played on both sides with both units, I would say that both are fine as they are at their current points.

Jowimus said:

He's talking about the assualt rangers with the dual rocket fists. They hit on inverted dice and ignore cover due to being CC weapons. Maybe you're thinking of the Grim reapers?

The assault rangers are very nasty if they get to their target intact. They are a bit fragile and can be hindered with suppression unlike the axis apes or zombies.

My buddy has been running the hvy lasers with the dual mg hero (can't recall her name) attached. She gives them a good bit of help vs type 2 infantry and soaks up a few hits that would otherwise cost him lasers. It's been very effective for him the last couple of games we've played.

Jophiel said:

If that is the case, I definetly disagree with the premise even more. The Hammers are maybe the worst "value" on the allied side IMO. They are completely worthless if they are suppressed, since they essentially have to be able to move and fight. One suppression token and that becomes impossible.

Jowimus said:

If you're playing against the Hammers, and especially if you're also using gorillas and/or zombies, having the "shelling" environment that makes it so suppression markers don't come off the board at the end of the turn would be very advantageous.

felkor said:

Great tactical advice Felkor. That is still dependant on a few things though. If you have to go first in the command phase (usually an advantage), then your regroup order may be trumped by a sniper shoot order, which has (atleast for me) become an almost automatic order. I have started to think that maybe much of the Hammer's power is related to what kind of terrain people are using. If they have tons of LOS blocking items that they can hide behind and them jump out from behind, that would certainly be a key element to this discussion. For the most part, my boards have tons of trees on them with a few scattered buildings. Since the tree terrain doesn't block LOS, this may contribute to the Hammer's failings on my end.

Have people been covering 1/4 of the board with terrain/using the competitive terrain placement rules?

Even if the hammers get suppressed in the command phase, in the unit phase they have a 2/3 chance of shaking it off, if they have Rhino (or Ozz) with them. With the hero, I feel you really need to be getting multiple suppression markers to hold them down. And then at that point, they've possibly done their work anyway by getting all the enemy forces using up their orders and making their units unable to react. *shrug* - I think the hammers can be stopped, but I do think it's extra tricky if they have a hero attached.

That is a lot of points for Rhino and the Hammers (great band name!) though. It may represent 1/6 of the enemy army in the games I've played. I wouldn't think twice about using 2 sniper squads to pin them down.