40K: 8th Ed Has Made Fast Attack Obsolete

The Fast Attack slot just isn’t what it used to be and it’s 8th Edition’s fault.

I can’t remember the last time I willingly took a Fast Attack option in one of my armies and I’ve started to notice I’m not the only player skipping this slot. For the vast majority of players, the FA slot just isn’t that useful any more. With very few exceptions, most armies just don’t need them – so what gives? What changed in 8th that made FA the worst slot in the force org chart and why?

No Scoring For You

I think the biggest and harshest change for Fast Attack slots is that they “can’t score.” This was a thing that really took hold in 7th – sure, they can technically “take an objective” but they don’t have Objective Secured. That means if a unit of 3 Land Speeders is camping on your opponent’s backfield objective, a lone Troop model can run over and snatch it from them. Now, I’m not saying that Fast Attack should score – I actually think that if they did, they would then de-emphasis the need for Troops. But at the same time, what’s the point of Fast Attack units if they can’t zoom to the backline and put some pressure on those objectives? “It’s to do damage to high value targets and vehicles!” Actually…I don’t think that’s their point either. At least, not now. Why? Great question – keep reading.

Vehicles Got Tough

In 8th Edition, we’ve seen the vehicle profile change to be more in line with the other unit types in the game. Gone are the days of Armor Facing, Armor Value, Damage Chart, and Hull Points. Many FA choices also benefited from these changes – it made Speeders tougher comparatively and these changes have made vehicles totally worth taking in 8th. But when you combine those changes with the amount of fire power a typical Fast Attack choice has, I think you’ll start to notice the problem. Let’s keep using Land Speeders as an Example.

You used to want to run 3 of these with Multi-meltas to go tank hunting. You’d fly them up (or deep strike if that was an option) typically on the flank or the rear of something like a Leman Russ Squad and you’d unload. With some good rolls you might cripple or destroy a tank or two (good old squadron rules). That was a good attack run! But now? Those same 3 Multi-melta equipped Land Speeders might not kill a lone Leman Russ, much less 2 of them – and you don’t even need to be tactical with them! You can just fly them right at the Tank you want to damage. Facing doesn’t matter and neither does the “Front vs Rear Armor” any more.

It’s a two-fold problem. Those Land Speeders are just “Dumbfire” missiles that you point at a target and go. And when they get there, they might not even do enough damage to matter. So why take them in the first place? Just take another squad of Lascannon Devastators and call it a day. Which brings me to the next point – maneuvering isn’t as important as positioning.

I Knew A Few Maneuvers

In the way I’m using the terms, difference between maneuvering and positioning is simple: One takes into account vehicle/unit facing (maneuvering) and the other is only looking at location on the battlefield (positioning). One of these things no longer matters in 40k (maneuvering) and the other has become almost more important than your other tactics (positioning). Given that all units have a 360 field of vision and you can pre-measure everything (both changes I like, btw), it’s not complicated to figure out where to put units to give yourself an advantage or to cause your opponent problems down the road.

This is not a thing anymore

This was where Fast Attack units used to be very useful – again, when we had armor values/facing you could really make those transports or tanks think twice about rolling up unsupported. But, as mentioned above, you can just point your Fast Attack in a direction and go. It’s simpler and faster. I do like the change overall, I just think that because of that change Fast Attack units certainly lost some of their battlefield usefulness.

What Is “Fast” These Days

The last point I want to make is that being a “Fast” Attack option used to also mean that you were, you know, FAST. But now in 8th, everything moves so much faster than it used to move. Some armies have Troops that can move 8″+1D6 during their movement phase and also CHARGE 2D6 (looking at you Genestealers). That’s a threat range of 11″-26″ in a turn. That’s pretty nasty! Lots of armies also have rules that allow their basic Infantry the ability to move, advance and fire with little-to-no penalty. Oh and let’s not forget Assault Weapons either! When everyone moves that fast, are the Fast Attack options really that different?

Hey – at least Fast Attack options look COOL

Fast Attack used to live and die by their Speed. It would provide them with the extra durability on the tabletop, get them into deadly striking positions, and allow them to zoom back out again. 8th Edition has really changed those units up and forced players to re-think the usefulness of Fast Attack units. Again, there are some great FA choices out there (Foetid Blight-Drones for example) so we’re not saying they are ALL useless. However, how they function on the battlefield has got to be re-evaluated.

 

So what’s your take on Fast Attack options in general? Are they a slot that you find yourself skipping frequently? Or have you found success with the Fast Attacks?

  • Patrick Chua

    it aint dead, I always have 2-4 squads of raptors and they are a beast in my list.

    • Nathaniel Wright

      Shhhh… That destroys the narrative.

      • Aurion Shidhe

        Don’t forget, a unit or FOC slot is only good if it wins tournaments. It doesn’t matter if it’s fun to play.

        • Exactly.

        • FCBullsht

          yes, thats why the terms “good” and “fun” differ in first place

        • Josh Heinz

          I’d counter that with how simplified their jobs became, not having to maneuver around AV facings and firing arcs, they have became significantly less fun to use as well.

        • Nyyppä

          Well, even casuals want to have a chance on winning so….

      • gordonshumway

        Mentioning one FA unit that is corner-case effective doesn’t “destroy the narrative”…

        • Mr.Gold

          Sydonian Dragoon Squadron with Stygies Dogma has a -2 to hit when shooting at them, will be in your face fast (Move 10″) with S8, -1AP and additional hits on a 6+ to hit roll. combo with Conqueror Doctrina Imperatives (1 CP) (+2 to hit as it has a broad-spectrum data tether built in to the model) and you are gaining bonus attacks on a 4+ to hit. that is going to hurt…

    • Deacon Ix

      I pared them with Warp Talons (first time ever used) – the WT charged first (no Overwatch) then the Raptors piled in – paired with a couple of Sorcs casting warp time and they made for a beefy combo.

      • gordonshumway

        The author is clearly talking about matched play…I mean if you were able to cast as many Warptimes as you wanted in matched play A LOT of marginal units would instantly become more viable.

        • zeno666

          Haha wow! Yeah.
          And Eldar could cast several Conceals on a unit 🙂

        • Deacon Ix

          I was too, unless I have missed something (which is not unlikely) each sorc you have can cast warp time 1 per turn, I had a squad of Raptors a squad of WT and 2 sorcs with jump packs.
          Both of the Warp Time powers did go off which was fortunate, so the raptors and WT ended up 1″ away and managed to charge easily.

          Have I missed something?

          • zeno666

            You can only cast each power once (Smite is an exception) per turn.
            Not once per psyker.

          • Marco Marantz

            it states ‘a psyker may not attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once in a turn.’

          • Marcet

            Incorrect: pg 215: ‘Psychic focus, With the exception of smite, each psychic power can only be attempted only once per turn, rather than once per psyker per turn.’, since we’re talking about matched play this is relevant.

          • Marco Marantz

            Its not incorrect Mr Know-It-All, its in the main rules, the summary card and the rules primer. The fact that GW has a different set of rules for matched is its own stupidty; the rules most often referred to/printed are the non matched play rules which Deacon understandably used believing to be the right ones.

          • Marcet

            It is incorrect because we are talking about Matched play, the simple fact that he did not know does not magically make him, or you correct. I provided the correct rule as it has to be used in matched play, which Deacon played, you provided the rule for non-matched play. Since he played matched he is, and you are, incorrect.

            No need to get upset when you are wrong.

          • Marco Marantz

            Uh no. I specifically stated the most commonly stated rule and the fact that it causes confusion but you not only failed to comprehend that, which indicates your low level of reading comprehension and general lack of intelligence but you felt the overwhelming need to cite the other rule in a pathetic attempt to prove you know the rules and I dont. The fact that I referred to confusion indicates i was aware of different rules (the matched play rule) so I was not wrong, you’re just an idiot. I bet you are one of those pedantic rules lawyers that most players just want to strangle.Both Deacon and his opponent clearly didnt know the matched play rule and were following the standard rule. Besides, nothing in Deacons original post indicated he was playing a matched play game but it was clear in the context of matched play, what had happened.

          • Marcet

            Upset much? I mean by trying to insult me you have lost the moral argument.

            It’s fine though, if you can’t win the argument resort to ad hominem, the fact you quoted the general rule has no bearing on the matter. In his second reply Deacon admits to playing matched, hence the general rule is not applicable, end of story. Instead you double down on your mistake and proceed to insult me, well done, I’m sure you feel good now.

            One thing you’re right about though, I do rigidly apply rules, so what? I know the rules, I can play anywhere without having to ask how people play the game.

            But hey, you apparently can’t speak respectfully to someone with another opinion or who points out how and why you’re wrong so don’t bother replying.

          • Marco Marantz

            The moral argument? You mean the argument of a loser? I quoted the general rule and cited its numerous sources to explain to deacon and everyone else the reason why he and his opponent would easily have believed that was the correct rule, and to demonstrate GWs problematic approach to advanced rules. Maybe this time you can get it though your head- the fact that I mentioned confusion explains that I am at least aware of an alternate rule. You cannot say that anywhere in my post im advocating using the standard rule over the matched play rule in matched play. Thats YOUR false interpretation. You are just one of those types that has to demonstrate how much they know and know more than others, and I bet, been in the hobby longer than anyone else, etc.

          • LankTank

            So much hostility when your wrong? The player your “defending” was fine and appreciated the rules clarification but you when proven wrong start throwing a tanty? You sound fun…

          • Marco Marantz

            Im just frustrated in having to deal with unintelligent people including yourself. I bet you created another account just to make it seem like you have some support when frankly if anyone was going to intervene they would have done so earlier, AND again what I posted was not stating the core rule was the correct but was explaining how players could and obviously do get caught out with the difference between rules. Im not going to have any one tell me im wrong when my post simply explains the reason for confusion. How anyone can interpret what I wrote as me advocating the standard rule over the matched play rule is beyond me.

          • Marcet

            1. I fight my own battles, I don’t resort to ‘creating another account to make it seem like I have support’.
            2. You have changed your original post. How very honest of you.
            3. Because you asked so nicely, yes I have been in the hobby for a while, probably longer than you have been alive, that doesn’t mean I don’t make mistakes.

            I can admit when I make a mistake, you apparently can’t and apparently are so insecure about being right that anyone who disagrees with you must be ‘unintelligent, an idiot, or lacking in intelligence’ or is a fake account to seem like there is support. Insulting someone does not make their words invalid, nor does it make you right. Again, if you can’t act with respect please be so kind not to respond, thank you.

          • LankTank

            Yup. I made a fake account months back and have commented on multiple topics in a cunning cover scheme s all leading to this one moment. Do you know what’s unintelligent? Jumping to mad conclusions to justify your own insecurities. But have fun man

          • gordonshumway

            In matched play only one psyker can ATTEMPT Warptime per turn, whether they fail or succeed. See the additional rules under matched play in the BRB. Smite is the only psychic power that may be attempted/cast more than once.

          • Deacon Ix

            Cheers – missed that, only the second game of matched play in 8th so still picking it up – tho in my group we still quote rules from RT and 2nd – old dogs, new tricks and all that 😀

    • Matthew LeBlanc

      Dont forget the lovely chaos spawns. 4 units of raptors supported by 2 to 3 units of spawn is fun and scary. My fun detachment.

  • Bigalmoney666

    Nah.
    Also, a landspeeder can jump on a backfield objective as soon as it’s left undefended.

    • Muninwing

      and you can field three in one slot that no longer need to remain in formation…

      • zeno666

        No, they don’t have that rule.
        Or did I miss it somewhere?

        • Muninwing

          there’s no “squadron” anymore. you take a vehicle, you take a vehicle. you take three, they operate individually after deployment.

          unless i’m wrong here? my head’s been in academia for the last few months, instead of playing games.

          • zeno666

            Some “units” have a rule like this:
            “During deployment, all models in
            this unit must be set up at the same time, though they
            do not need to be set up in unit coherency. From that
            point onwards, each Primaris Lieutenant is treated as a
            separate unit.”
            The Land Speeder doesn’t have such a rule.
            And the Land Speeder entry says:
            “This unit contains 1 Land Speeder. It can include up to 2 additional Land Speeders.”

            So I think it acts as a unit/squadron?

          • I_am_Alpharius

            That was my understanding. Unless a unit has a rule on the datasheet saying after deployment they may act as individual units; such as, all the AM tanks that can be taken in 3’s have the rule Vehicle Squadron (see example Hydra entry below – which I believe is the called same across the board and armies). If they don’t then a unit must maintain coherency when moving.

          • Brother Eldrian

            Don’t forget that 3 Landspeeders move faster than one. 😉

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Ooo yeah forgot that. If I recall rightly, they go up to 20″; called something like antigrav upwash?

          • Muninwing

            interesting. i must have seen that rule elsewhere (like maybe on a Leman Russ squad?) and just assumed early that it applied everywhere.

            then again, that means that they got a little worse. they need to stay in regular coherency… not the 5″ they used to have.

  • Defenestratus

    I don’t really pay attention to what slot a unit is in when I decide to include it in my army builds…

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      The only times it comes up for me is when I run out of slots, lol

    • zeno666

      You don’t use detachments?

      • Simon Bates

        The detachments are so flexible now it doesn’t much matter, other than having the necessary HQs or if you have a close eye on maximising CPs.

  • Muninwing

    Ravenwing is nasty in 8th. the durability of bikers, the ability to now shoot all weapons — the bike’s guns as well as the pistol or special weapon of the rider — increase their effectiveness. and the toughness boost always helps.

    i’m not saying they’re the new ward-level cheez. but they do well.

    • zeno666

      True, Dark Angels can probably get a lot more out of their fast attack stuff since they have fast characters that can keep up with great buffs.

      • Brother Eldrian

        You have to decide wether to shoot your pistol or your other weapons I think. But still. Bolter plus special weapons are nice.

        • Muninwing

          yes. but you get to shoot it elsewhere, so it evens out. i should have been clearer there — i just meant rate of fire in all phases, not just in the shooting phase.

    • Mike Forrey

      Exactly. Ravenwing bikes are VERY tough and all you need is an Apothecary hanging by to make them even more obnoxious for your opponents to deal with.

      I think you would actually see more basic speeders played if their rules/stats matched their insane points cost. The DA variant Darkshroud and Vengeance are both worth their points though.

      Attack bikes really need to be looked at. For all practical purposes they are almost always hitting on 4’s before any other modifiers and it’s a very low rate of fire for the points. I have used them effectively but only with Sammael close by or if they are supporting near another Captain.

    • Dennis J. Pechavar

      Yes but again this is bikers. Sadly speeders, other than the shroud, are less points efficient. This includes Sam on a jetbike as he is far less useful when he is in the speeder. More shots in the speeder but can be targeted and usually that kills him, worse than that he costs even more points. The bikes remain good or ,in the case of the Knights, great.

      the flyers are even good now. It’s more the speeders don’t have the same niche that they used to. I agree that they aren’t ward level cheez.

      • Muninwing

        the LSV is nasty. if anything, the Darkshroud is less effective than it was in 7th.

        it’s funny… the two seem to switch places. in 6th, the Darkshroud was alright, but nothing to be amazed at, while the Vengeance was a beast. sure, it usually killed itself with an overheat, but that was fun anyway. then in 7th, the LSV became useless (jink was necessary, but rendered the main gun unusable) and the darkshroud was a virtual necessity.

        i’m figuring on trying a unit of Black Knights with a Chaplain, and MSU units of RW bikers with one joined by a librarian. Maybe i can use a unit of antichaff speeders for funsies (HB/AC, 7 shots, look to thin out the herds and draw fire… or twin flamers, always nice…)

        here i am, planning out my Fast attack-based-army, in an article about how FA is useless.

  • Krzysztof Jasinski

    Try the Salamnde attack bikes with multi meltas splitted into 1 moto units 🙂

    You fill these full reroll metla ? :p

    Other wise good article 🙂

    • FCBullsht

      Multimeltas are way overpriced in comparison to Lascannons and Attack Bikes suffer from the same problem as Landspeeders: a negative hit modifier as soon as they move

      • Simon Bates

        Salamanders’ one reroll per unit improves them significantly though.

  • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

    Loss of facings and the cinematic explodes result is the main reason I don’t play 8th. Took the fun and tactics out of the game.

    • BadMrPumpkin

      Lol

    • Dennis J. Pechavar

      Loss of facing is a tough thing to deal with. Removed a good deal of tactical movement and fire arcs encourage sloppy game play. IMO.

  • zeno666

    Yepp, I can agree with this article.
    Now its all about delivering the first heavy punch (ie, take heavies and get first turn) and watch your opponent trying to pick up the pieces.
    And no facing on vehicles really killed the landspeeder.

    • Mike Forrey

      Landspeeders ridiculous points value for what they bring isn’t doing them any favors either.

  • Munn

    I take 7 FAs in SoB lists.

  • GrenAcid

    Solusion: Play on bigger board that 4’x4′.
    General rule should be: If you can shoot upon enemy in 1 turn save for DS and some LONG rage unit(basilisk ect) you are plaing on tiny board and you need bigger.
    Works wonders.

    • banana raccoon

      This certainly helps. Our local group has switched over to the recommended 6×4 boards for 2000 point games and it changes things greatly. As another personal anecdote, my special weapons Raptors have almost always made their points back and then some. It just no longer feels like you can take some super fast crap, get a nasty alpha, and then just move up everything else while your opponent tries to clean up.

    • Scott Staten

      But… i mean if the board is actually big enough for the game to not be Alpha strike 40K then a 4-5 turn game is going to be nearly impossible!!!! 😛

      • Chris Hilliard

        That’s what objectives are for. Having to choose between defending an objective or going after a different one is the source of risk that makes tactical decisions interesting.

    • Mike Forrey

      Playing a 4×4 table is just asking to be abused. You should ALWAYS be playing on a 4×6 table so that objectives actually matter instead of just trying to table your opponent.

      • Brian Griffith

        Yeah, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if 4×4 went away except for in Necromunda.

      • GrenAcid

        4×6 is bare minimum on anything bigger than 1k points. I strongly recomend and encourage to play on bigger boards. When I started my adventure with 40k my “board” was concrete pavment at my friends house and 92″ of basilisk wasnt enough to cover it all. Bikes were must have, DS was a big thing. Bigger the board better the fun.

    • (Not being sarky or attacking you here)
      Are you actually serious that people play 2,000 points on a 4 x 4 table???? I play with a couple of different groups and never on less than a 6 x 4, which has often left me wondering about articles like this as they reflect the reality of my games so very little.

      Speed is king in most of our games – foot sloggers (yes even Elday units) end up out of position and unable to achieve much, first turn alpha strikes are fairly muted as range tends to limit shots to only very long range weapons / weapons that have moved and suffer a penalty so being fast enough to get something happening turn one is very valuable, cover tends to provide enough extra protection or block line of sight so high value units are hidden, weight of numbers is a very powerful tactic and is easiest with numbers,

      In terms of this article, a lot of it is complete crap, basically. Some obvious errors:

      – Only troops score – this is not a fast attack specific weakness. Also fast attack are sitting on your base line? OwO maybe you should be using them to force your opponent to hold back units on his base line to protect objectives while your fast attack unit is both achieving this and shooting other units?

      – Vehicles got tough. Yep – but so did your fast attack units. No more being shot out of the sky by a unit of tactical marines with a heavy bolter. So you can’t blow up a Leman Russ in one round with your land speeders? Oh no. On the other hand you can now swoop in, multi melta one Leman Russ potentially reducing its effectiveness, use your heavy flamers on some infantry, and then charge into another unit to tie them up (then fall back and freely shoot up another unit in a subsequent turn), Swings and round abouts.

      – Yes there is a change in how you use fast attack units, but on the other hand there is new things to work out (i.e. fast attack works well for denying landing zones to deep strike units)

      – What is fast any more is extremely disingenuous. Different units move at different rates and different armies have different levels of access to speed on their units. To imply that an armies Fast Attack is not fast within the context of their army because another army has access to faster units is silly.

      • LankTank

        I agree. I get confused about this “alpha strike”. Isnt that what you use poxwalkees for? To spread far and wide to stop deep strikes / first turn charges?

  • Matt Halkos

    Stormboys work surprisingly Well.

    • BrianDavion

      I imagine plenty of FA choices do. the problem is this article writer is still trying to play 8th edition with 7th ed tactics, unsuprisingly it’s not doing to good

  • Mr_Pickles

    What about Necron Destroyers or Scarabs? Destroyers are expensive but have some of the best shooting out of the entire faction, and Scarabs can be surprisingly amazing since they have a special rule that allows them to always wound on 5+.

    • Drpx

      Land Speeders=every fast attack unit in the game.

  • piglette

    You will never be an Emperor’s Children landspeeder pilot, perfectly timing maneuvers and attacks for the glory of the Emperor and the Great Crusade. http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7190b56cccad8b0d72f1bd953e25390602e7302f17069327416e8f6a1ac7091e.png

    • Brian Griffith

      Heresy doesn’t use 8th.

  • Carey_Mahoney

    Another proof that 40k 8th ed. genuinely sucks.

    • I_am_Alpharius

      YEAAAAAAH! 8TH SUCKS. DOWN WITH 8TH! DOWN WITH 8TH! WOOOO! Say it again, this time with feeling WOOOO!….if you keep saying it, then it must be true…just like saying “I do believe in fairies, I do, I do believe in fairies.”

      • Carey_Mahoney

        Same for your denying.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Who said I was denying? I was completely serious. DOWN WITH 8TH! DOWN WITH 8TH! DOWN WITH 8TH! DOWN WITH 8TH! Now where’s my pitch fork and firebrand…

        • Son_of_Corax_XIX

          Don’t put yourself down like that

          • Carey_Mahoney

            So punchy…

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            now now special snowflake

          • Carey_Mahoney

            ?? Yeah, whatever…

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Awwwww..I thought we were stating Le 40K Revolution? I got my pitch fork and everything…. 🙁

          • Carey_Mahoney

            Oh right, it’s the super-hostile faction of fanboys upping their game of going nuts about different opinions again. Can’t you stop treating criticism towards 40k equal to personally insulting you and your families? This isn’t quite the fun part of the hobby.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Oh oh oh I get it now…you had criticism in your statement of “Another proof that 40k 8th ed. genuinely sucks”. I have to admit I missed nuance of your position. I see now how deep and insightful it was. Such powerful stuff.

            Vive la revolution! Keep fighting the good fight!

          • Carey_Mahoney

            Incredible sarcasm.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Why, thankyou very much. I’m only as good as my muses…

          • LankTank

            Yeah hate this hobby and edition so much. Better go on forums dedicated to the play of 40k in 8th and give my weak as opinion

          • Carey_Mahoney

            Why not?

          • LankTank

            Aww you lonely?

          • Carey_Mahoney

            No. I’m interested in 40k.

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            awwww

    • Brian Griffith

      Sure.

      It sucks so much it pulled tons of old lapsed players back into the game.

      • Carey_Mahoney

        On the contrary.

        • Brian Griffith

          Hasn’t been my experience, but “nuh-uh” isn’t much of an argument.

          • Carey_Mahoney

            Sure, we all can come up with some anecdotal “arguments” here. It’s pointless already, so why bother?

          • Brian Griffith

            Sounds like a question you should ask yourself, certainly.

          • Carey_Mahoney

            Huh? Didn’t get that. Please explain your point here.

          • Brian Griffith

            You just showed up to say 8th sucks, and offer no support for it. As you said, pointless.

          • Carey_Mahoney

            This BOLS article here was supposed to be the support. Didn’t want write an essay here. Neither do owe you any argument. So, cut it out, will you?

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            Don’t bother arguing with guys like this on here your wasting your breathe. You are right it has brought lots of people back into the hobby

          • Carey_Mahoney

            Now THAT one was pretty derogatory. Wtf is wrong with you, man?

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            Not at all just stating the obvious as you’ll argue till your blue in the face even though your wrong

          • Carey_Mahoney

            Whoa. You’re really defending your house and property against those 8th edition dislikers, aren’t you?
            Speaking of obviousness: I didn’t argue all that much about 8th ed. being crappy or it attracting or deterring people. The arguing was all about you guys being offensive, and even you should agree that I am not wrong with that. I severely dislike 8th ed. and I have good reason for that, equally to you having your reasons for enjoying it. Being huge fans of 40k we have in common. That same passion makes me detest 8th. edition, which I’m free to utter, and the very same passion makes you feel insulted by that and makes you cross the line of getting offensive. Now spot the difference between me and you.

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            I’m not defending anything, think you will find that it is you doing that. Tbh perfectly honest on the whole I miss a lot about 7th
            I just pointed out what you said about 8th is biased nonsense that sales figures and participation numbers don’t reflect, meaning there’s no point arguing with guys like you that look at 8th from the personal biased point of “I don’t like it so no one else does”. As that is just a waste of breath on someone who can’t see the forest for the trees.
            So look how defensive you have gotten and how much of a special snowflake you have been over someone saying don’t waste your breathe conversing with someone who states their own opinion as facts on whats going on with 8th

          • Carey_Mahoney

            You’re turning facts upside down. Guess the problem is that you imply me thinking “I don’t like it so no one else does “, something that you have no basis for. I respect everyone’s fun at playing a tabletop game. Didn’t know I should mention something like that explicitly. Moreover, you know nothing about me (except that I play 40k and detest 8th ed.), so overtly dismissing my integrity or worthiness of discussion after two short comments is derogatory in my book and well worth defending against. Again, who do you think you are, to say anything about me or “guys like me”? And my utterance of you defending […] was clearly to be understood in an abstract, figurative sense, meaning that you are taking 40k personally, at least it seems so, seeing that reaction of yours. As I said: I was offending a game. You were offending me.

          • Son_of_Corax_XIX

            Wasn’t offending at all to point out people like you who make the negative comments about 8th saying it’s not popular etc when everything says the opposite isn’t derogatory. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word before using it. The only derogatory term used was calling you the special snowflake that you are.

          • Carey_Mahoney

            You’re turning facts upside down. Guess the problem is that you imply me thinking “I don’t like it so no one else does “, something that you have no basis for. I respect everyone’s fun at playing a tabletop game. Didn’t know I should mention something like that explicitly. Moreover, you know nothing about me (except that I play 40k and detest 8th ed.), so overtly dismissing my integrity or worthiness of discussion after two short comments is derogatory in my book and well worth defending against. Again, who do you think you are, to say anything about me or “guys like me”? And my utterance of you defending […] was clearly to be understood in an abstract, figurative sense, meaning that you are taking 40k personally, at least it seems so, seeing that reaction of yours. As I said: I was offending a game. You were offending me.

    • Mike Forrey

      All it shows is the lack of this author to think outside the box. Bikes and other FA options are all very good. Landspeeders certainly suck but they aren’t the only FA option that exists in game.

      • Carey_Mahoney

        Then what about the point about maneuvering vs. positioning? Just to name a quick example for good points in this article.

        • LankTank

          A trade off for slick play. Ill live with it. If I need more depth I got bmg

          • Carey_Mahoney

            It wasn’t worth that price.

    • zeno666

      Don’t worry. After four chapter approved we might have a complete working game 😉

  • Chris Hilliard

    I find the Pathfinders to be very effective. Piranhas can also be fun, what with the barrage of 12 Pulse shots into a target. Maybe you should leave the tank hunting to the Heavy Support, and use Fast Attack for raiding the light stuff instead?

  • ellobouk

    *looks at hellhounds* *looks at title of article* *shrugs and continues to burn heretics with FA tanks*

  • DoctorBored

    I see a lot of comments to the tune of, “You’re just wrong! I take FA!”

    The kicker is, a lot of people are ignoring points in the article. Taking Assault Marines or Raptors, for example, are pretty great because they can close the gap and get into melee, where they excel, very quickly, but many elites and other troops can do this just as well. (Vanguard Vets, Genestealers, etc).

    The bottom line is price for dakka. If you’re paying for those Land Speeders for 3 Multi-Meltas, you’re paying a hefty price for a unit that is redundant in the face of Devastators or Hellblasters that can pump out a lot more fire from a lot longer range. Positioning is king, and unfortunately many people don’t use enough LOS blocking terrain in their games. More LOS-blocking terrain means FA would be a lot more useful.

    Sadly, even GW has not made much terrain themselves that blocks LOS. Trees, vines, statues, and even their buildings all have tons of holes to fire through.

    A return of large pieces of LOS blocking terrain that break up the battlefield will see a return of Fast Attack options that can maneuver around things, jump over things, and such. But, that won’t happen if tournaments or Games Workshop lead the way first.

    • BadMrPumpkin

      Marines in melee… lol

    • Brian Griffith

      Oh, Games Workshop is already recommending more LOS blocking terrain.

      After all, they sell it.

    • Mike Forrey

      Bringing back cover modifiers would help a great deal especially against Alpha Strikes.

    • LankTank

      Strong points but id argue its more a marine issue than a general all FA. I mean when were Tyranid fast attack ever worth it over genestealers and flying tyrants?

  • Heinz Fiction

    To be fair: with the exception of Warp Spiders who happend to be quite OP for a while I didn’t use much fast attack choices since 4th edition across my armies. It might even turn out that I use more of them in 8th but I’m still testing stuff out…

  • Drpx

    So because Land speeders can’t shoot tanks in the butt or contest an objective on the bottom of the last turn, all fast attack are useless?

    • Brian Griffith

      Yeah, my main takeaway from this is Adam really likes land speeders.

  • Maitre Lord Ironfist

    Dominions with an Immolator. It is Fast and it is strong x)

  • G Ullrich

    I take it you haven’t seen the IG with Sentinels then?

  • Nogle

    Biggest reason is that all of the planes moved from fast attack to flyer

  • Bootneck

    This is kind of premature as only the new codex’s have a version of Obj secured, and just because those do who’s to say the others will – i’m sure this won’t be the case.

    But even if its not, probably be another 6 months before the rest of the factions have there shiny new ones.

  • Crablezworth

    I agree but the author didn’t go far enough, the foc itself is dead on arrival. 8th ed army construction is awful.

  • Bakvrad

    I love charging tanks with my speeders, after I shot at them. Either they run away or they get shot again in my round, when I fly out of combat again. Either way, one shooting phase less…

    • 40KstillRulesTheTT

      Yep I really think that is the current role for all light véhicules which are cheap enough : assault stuff (that hasn’t the fly rule) so it cannot shoot back.
      Weird that a land speeder may thus ram much larger stuff to prevent return fir but hey…

      • Simon Bates

        I think of it more as close range harassment. The pilots and gunners are getting so close that it’s hard for the vehicles to return fire effectively (represented by them only getting overwatch), buzzing around them a bit and lobbing the odd krakk grenade, backing off to fire their own shots (also at reduced effectiveness when they fire heavy weapons, but less so) then closing in again.

  • Bootneck

    The other thing which is overlooked is – many players simply don’t care about obj sec.

    If they remove the unit through superior firepower or deadly cc, your poor old troop choices are looking like easy pickings for a heavy support or fast attack choice.

    If they table you they win anyway in MOST tournys.

    In 7th even with obj sec it was rarely a game decider by having this ability in my experience.

  • Kayreios

    Been playing almost nothing but FA this edition…

    But i can see how they don’t fit with ultramarine centurions and a LoW.

    Should be titled “space marine codex that forgot fast attack”

  • FCBullsht

    SM Tarantulas with twin assault cannons are a steal for 45pts!

  • Louie’sUglyRanglehorns

    Vehicles SHOULDN’T advance unsupported. Removing facing values took away so much tactical depth. No wonder FA is a less valuable slot. 8th is great overall but killing the maneuver aspect removes a really fun, if less expedient, aspect of the game.

    • Mr.Gold

      even if they kept it so weapons fired on 360, but if vehicles were shot on the sides then they were -1Toughness, and shot in the rear -1T & -1 Save (aka 3+ to a 4+), for example.

    • Marc Berry

      Agreed! This game was ment to have been playtested by the community like frontline gaming how did they not pick this up or even mention that vehicles lost some of their tactical depth is beyond me?

      • Carey_Mahoney

        Maybe they did but it wasn’t implemented. Who knows.

      • LankTank

        I think it was a sacrifice to stream line the game, sane as cover being boned. Alot of things that potentially could cause a debate in game (scatter for example) Although I love the idea of -1armour in the rear facing!

  • Brian Griffith

    The way I see it, Fast Attack was kind of a platypus before 8th. It was a weird mixture of harassment units with sorta-kinda fliers before we had fliers. Then they tossed actual fliers into it.

    Now the fliers got broken out into their own thing, and the skimmers just feel weird left behind.

    I think as 8th goes forward the battlefield roles will solidify more as GW figures out what they’re for, rather than just republishing legacy units.

  • rui valadares

    Just because they can’t score doesn’t mean they’re useless.
    Can’t they just be reliable units to rapidly deploy to fill gaps in your line, assisting other squads taking down the enemy? I mean, the enemy units cannot score if you destroy them. Synergy used to be a thing (oh yeah, it still is).
    And again, you only have one perspective: tournament play. Some people just play for… wait for it… FUN!

    • Simon Bates

      Seems sensible to me. Anti-troop landspeeders are a pretty big threat to cheap objective-holding infantry. If your opponent is relying on conscripts, cultists or gretchin to hold objectives in their backfield, they have reason to fear multilple heavy bolter/assault cannon/heavy flamer/typhoon launcher equipped speeders closing on them.

  • Christopher Cromer

    I feel like scoring shouldn’t be a simple yes or now. Some units can score and some can’t. It should be a stat. Some units or more effective at holding objective than others. A tac squad might have a score ability of 10 (1 per marine) whole guard might be 10 for a 20 man blob. A land speeder could still score at say a 3 so one lone marine couldn’t stop him but a small squad of 4 against that land speeder would be enough for them to claim it. It would also be a really great way to give some units a reason to be on the table as certain units might be built for objective holding while others are more offensively oriented.

  • Matthew Pomeroy

    to me its a combination of 6×4 being too small to accommodate the size of armies with the larger scale of models. The battlefield is just not as big as it used to be in scale.

  • Ragnar_Blackmane

    You must not be playing Tau then. Pathfinders, Tactical drone squads, kroot hounds AND Vespids (as well as the Y’vahra if your group still allows FW after their last few extremely badly balanced rules updates) are all competing for your FA slots. If you don’t have at least one outrider detachment you are basicallly not sufficiently using most of their very best units.

    • Chris Hilliard

      Moving 16″ with a Piranha and shooting another 18″ makes for a great reply to Scout Marines grabbing an Objective. Also fun for tearing Heavy Weapons teams a new one.

  • inailo

    Buddy, you’re high as a kite. I play DG, and I’m running nearly full fast attack, with two bloat drones (it’ll be 3 once the kit comes out), and spawns. I literally have no heavy support, very little interest in it, outside of maybe 1 plagueburst crawler, and am mostly loading up on elites and fast. My drones gunning it across the table has disrupted my enemy more times than I can count, and even if they go down, I’ve then got plague marines in their face all of a sudden. Plus, I’m planning on running some melee plague marines soon, and I’ll be using the stratagem cloud of flies to ensure that you can’t target them as long as I have a bloat drone up the field. Then I burn a command point to auto-pop the drone if you DO go after it, having hopefully gotten it into a good spot for maximum goopage. My entire strategy revolves around fast attack, and I’m having an amazing go of it!

  • LankTank

    So renegade chaos bikers moving 18″, firing meltaguns then charging arent good,? Or bloat drones? Or deffkopta bomm skwads? Or white scar assault squads? Or harlequin jetbikes?

  • Marco Marantz

    I can see the premise for this article but dont agree.
    No Scoring For You: This is fine. Fast Attack still have the ability to seize undefended objectives and destroy lightly defended objectives.
    Vehicles got tough: Do you want to go back to 7th ed one shotting land raiders? I dont. This is a sensitive thing to try and balance. Fast attack can be effective for their points. The eg you give is something i do not think should be in the game.
    I know a few maneuvers: Fast also benefit from not having to worry about facing and they are fast enough that they can relocate easier in reaction to the positioning of slower units. It does feel unnatural not to have weaker rear armor.
    What is fast: I would agree GW have screwed up with some units having the speed they do have.

  • Damos1212

    “my choices are bad so the entirety of the fast attack slot is dead”
    typical BOLS crybaby thread, move along

  • Robomummy

    Note: ignore the above article if you aren’t space Marines or imperium.

  • lmn118

    One unit, for one faction is not as good so they all are worthless? Really?

  • Daniel Carleton

    This should be labelled “Landspeeders are obsolete” not “Fast attack are obsolete” plenty of other fast attack choices are viable, especially in the chaos codex.

    Bikes are 27 points for 2 wound tough 5 3+ marines, with 14″ movement a combi bolter and a chainsword. Can take 2 specs in a 3 man squad, and get any of the legion rules (+1A, advance and charge, advance and shoot, always strike first, ignore cover, always in cover…)

    Spawn can be 1 man squads at 33 points ea to fill in any remaining FA choices you need to fill.

    Raptors can bring in 2 spec weapons by deep strike in a 5 man squad and also can be dropped to bubble wrap your characters like abaddon or a daemon prince for a small investment.

  • Avis Lee

    At least in Space Marines, most of the options for Fast Attack are pretty good. Between bikers with lots of dakka, Assault Marines as a distraction, Land Speeders, and the new Inceptors, Fast Attack have plenty of good options.

    It might depend codex to codex, but I doubt Fast Attack is “obsolete”.

  • Watcherzero

    Ive seen land speeders played for fast moving firepower and bikers played a lot with their stormshields they can be extremely durable while quickly crossing the board, it seems to be a racial niche reflecting the foot slogging Astartes, with dedicated transports generally not being used by anyone other than for fluff because they are so expensive and Predators only recently being buffed in to nastiness with their new squadron rule. Not seen any other races fast attack choices played however (e.g. Hellhounds, Sentinels). Fast Attack and transports need a serious look at to make them viable (perhaps radically reduce transport cost but also nerf their accuracy to compensate) or perhaps Fast Attack could reflect their scouting role by providing an accuracy buff to your forces (e.g. +1 to hit rolls) when shooting enemy within a max range of 12″-20″ or so of themselves,

    • ILikeToColourRed

      bikers with stormshields?

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        Vet Bikers can take Storm Shields.

        • ILikeToColourRed

          thats pretty cool ^_^

  • NagaBaboon

    I don’t think Fast attack is dead, I’ve often missed out the fast attack slot in previous editions, and other times I’ve neglected the heavy slot, it just depends on how you pare playing, you do have to remember that flyers have been taken out of the fast attacke slot so most armies don’t have as many FA unit choices as they do from other slots. If they have been hampered it’d be helped so much with some adjustments to terrain. At the moment every lists key feature is to put a lot of hurt down quickly, if cover worked again it might change the way people play again. I think cover should stay as it is but also add in a rule that any shot that is partially obscured by terrain or other units is +1 to the hit roll.

  • ILikeToColourRed

    if mobility isnt important in your games :
    you either have too many models on the table for the size
    or you don’t have enough LOS cover

  • Thomas

    Bloat Drones. Boom.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      See also: Inceptors.

  • Talos2

    I must be using mine wrong then

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    Why is no Obsec interpreted as not being able to score at all? Outside of blob Guard, what Troops choice is durable enough to survive just sit on objectives?

  • MechBattler

    They haven’t become useless. Their role has simply changed.
    Using Landspeeders as the example –
    Sure, they can’t oneshot tanks anymore. However, they’re perfectly capable of wounding monsters that have damage charts down a tier, or obliterating small elite units with low wound counts.