Everything is technically a failed threat if the dice don't work out. Hellblasters are a non threat if they roll 5 1's in the first shooting phase. Psykers are a non-threat if the rolls abandon you. Snipers I admit are putting all your chips on 00 and hoping it pays off. Which is a horrible way to try and basically lose your game. But I like the thematic feel of Snipers. It brings me back to my days of learning to do shot logs on my M24.

Yeah snipers are worthless against any character that isnt an IG scrub, and even something like a commissar would take 2 to 3 squads of snipers to reliably bring down. Most characters in the game can take a lascannon to the face. What makes you think a dinky little sniper with no AP is gonna scare them?

After having a minute to process the changes, playing tanks and superheavies looks fun, but I still wouldnt really expect IG to take the tourney scene by storm. You can give us all the free gear, tank durability, and wounds on 6's to hit you want, it doesnt fix the issue that our infantry cant function in this kind of objective environment. We're essentially asking a sledgehammer to do brain surgery and acting surprised when it doesnt work. This kind of gameplay is just not what IG is designed to do mechanically. Which is a shame because I think 9th edition has a better mission system but man 9th ed just doesnt like IG

I'm motivated to finish my papercraft Marauder Destroyer Bomber just for the lols with the recent changes

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
After having a minute to process the changes, playing tanks and superheavies looks fun, but I still wouldnt really expect IG to take the tourney scene by storm. You can give us all the free gear, tank durability, and wounds on 6's to hit you want, it doesnt fix the issue that our infantry cant function in this kind of objective environment. We're essentially asking a sledgehammer to do brain surgery and acting surprised when it doesnt work. This kind of gameplay is just not what IG is designed to do mechanically. Which is a shame because I think 9th edition has a better mission system but man 9th ed just doesnt like IG

9th edition didn't like Tau either, but once they got their new book they started to dominate the tournament scene. I'm sure the Guard will be good, but they'll have to hang on for a new book. Sadly, that may be just in time for 10th edition to change stuff yet again, but hopefully at this point some of the books are being designed with 10th in mind already.

Really depends who’s writing our book. If it’s the team who did Orks we could be screwed. No synergies between units. No morale defence for a horde army. Heavily pushed new models at the expense of old ones.

I tried out the Macharius Vanquisher in my latest game (now when it has a 2+ and AoC), and unlike the Macharius BT (which is just worse than 2 LR BT's in every regard), the Vanquisher actually holds up pretty well in the arms-race that is 9th Ed.

Add Yarrick for extra accuracy and the chance of doing 18 wounds to a monster or vehicle in a single turn is pretty high.

I'm very curious about the vanquisher. I've printed two, one for each of my main guard forces. The regular macharius bt is underwhelming, but the vanquisher cannon, with Harker as support seems like the way to go against monster heavy Nid lists or against dreads and tanks.

 DoctorDanny wrote:
I'm very curious about the vanquisher. I've printed two, one for each of my main guard forces. The regular macharius bt is underwhelming, but the vanquisher cannon, with Harker as support seems like the way to go against monster heavy Nid lists or against dreads and tanks.

It's still pretty bad. It looks semi-decent in isolation until you compare it to the Shadowsword and realize you're paying almost as much for a significantly weaker unit. It's the same problem all the FW LoW units have, why pay 80% of the price for 50% of the tank?

CadianSgtBob wrote:
why pay 80% of the price for 50% of the tank?

Because I own a Macharius and I want to use the damn thing.

https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-bonus-paris-gt/

Imperial Guard do ok in a tournament!

And look at the weapon load out and the list...

HQ Russ, with blinged out Guard and Basilisks...

I'm looking to start back up in 40k. I haven't really played since 5th ED and interested in Playing Guard.

In my local group we have a Death Watch, 2 Nids, Orks and Necrons players.

From what I seen the codex is like 5yrs old and due to have a new one this year? Not so much asking for advice/tactics.

But with starting with guard now. A lot of models are fairly old. I really like the new Kasrkin and Sentinel models coming out and am currently a fan of the Tempestus Scions + Taurox vehicles.

I think my question is do you think the Scions are going to have new models with the new codex/release or would those be safe to buy and work on now? Or do you think with the return of Kasrkin that Tempestus might be phased out because weren't they essentially the replacement for Stormtroopers which is what the Kasrkin are?

Even though the like Leman Russ and Chimera, Basilisk, etc have been the same like design/hulls forever I still think they are good models but unsure if they might update them.

I'm personally not a fan of the current Cadian and Catachan models.

 Rogzor87 wrote:
I think my question is do you think the Scions are going to have new models with the new codex/release or would those be safe to buy and work on now?

Probably not. They're a fairly recent kit and there haven't been any credible leaks about an update. The only potential issue is we have no idea what GW is going to do with the weird pseudo-independent status they have. Will they remain a part of the IG codex but only get their full abilities in a separate detachment or will they be fully split off to become their own faction? With Kasrkin on the way there's the possibility that they become the <REGIMENT> option for heavy infantry and storm troopers are no longer available.

Even though the like Leman Russ and Chimera, Basilisk, etc have been the same like design/hulls forever I still think they are good models but unsure if they might update them.

There have been no credible leaks about updates there. We have no idea how good their rules will be, especially with the new heavy tank coming out and GW having incentive to make LRBTs less desirable to boost its sales, but it is unlikely that anything about the models will be changing.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Probably not. They're a fairly recent kit and there haven't been any credible leaks about an update. The only potential issue is we have no idea what GW is going to do with the weird pseudo-independent status they have. Will they remain a part of the IG codex but only get their full abilities in a separate detachment or will they be fully split off to become their own faction? With Kasrkin on the way there's the possibility that they become the <REGIMENT> option for heavy infantry and storm troopers are no longer available.

There have been no credible leaks about updates there. We have no idea how good their rules will be, especially with the new heavy tank coming out and GW having incentive to make LRBTs less desirable to boost its sales, but it is unlikely that anything about the models will be changing.

I thought like Tempestus Scions essentially replaced Stormtroopers with the carapace armor and hotshot lasguns. I wasn't aware that Tempestus were there own essentially subfaction within the army. So you have to take like a detachment dedicated to them fully to get all there special rules?

Also I thought that Kasrkin were essentially the Stormtrooper unit from many winters ago. At least they look very similar. I would believe that the new Kasrkin are just Stormtroopers returning just under a different name.

What new Heavy Tank is this? I know I seen stuff rumored or spoiled on like new heavy weapon teams, Kasrkin, Sentinels and command squad.

Does there happen to be a rumored or known ETA on the Kasrkin and Sentinel release?

 Rogzor87 wrote:
I thought like Tempestus Scions essentially replaced Stormtroopers with the carapace armor and hotshot lasguns. I wasn't aware that Tempestus were there own essentially subfaction within the army. So you have to take like a detachment dedicated to them fully to get all there special rules?

Yep. If you take a storm trooper unit as troops in a detachment with normal guard you don't get their doctrine bonus, can't use their stratagems, etc. All you get is the basic stat line. If you want to get the doctrine, relics, stratagems, and warlord traits you have to take a pure storm trooper detachment (and for some of them have a storm trooper unit as your warlord).

Also I thought that Kasrkin were essentially the Stormtrooper unit from many winters ago.

They were, or at least one possible representation of it, before GW changed the fluff from storm troopers including various elite heavy infantry (Kasrkin, DKoK grenadiers, etc) to being their own special snowflake graduates of torture-Hogwarts. What it looks like now is that Kasrkin will be standard guardsmen with better gear, the only question is whether they'll have the <REGIMENT> selectable keyword or be locked to CADIAN only.

What new Heavy Tank is this?

It's supposedly somewhere between a LRBT and Baneblade in size (whether that means Malcador size or Macharius size is TBD). We know it exists because the text leaks have been confirmed by a picture where a small piece of it is visible but other than that we don't know anything. The piece in the leaked image was just barely enough to confirm that it wasn't any existing IG model.

 Rogzor87 wrote:
I'm looking to start back up in 40k. I haven't really played since 5th ED and interested in Playing Guard.

Another 5-to-9-er! (I too stopped playing in 5th and picked back up in 9th. My impression so far is that our tanks are more durable in a practical sense (even before all the buffs) as crew shaken (and the vehicle damage table) isn't a thing anymore, but our infantry are less durable (gotta spend command points to up our saves with take cover and we lost go to ground). Deathstike is still a joke and manticore's 4 shot limit isn't as much of an issue anymore. Also, command points/stratagems and terrain rules will take some getting used to.

Welcome back.

I'm considering the theory that GW will make specific sub factions function differently with Storm Troopers. Cadian gets White Shields and Kasakin, Catachan get "Jungle Fighters" or something, DKoK get literal Storm Troopers. Everyone else gets the OPTION to pay for the upgrade to a standard squad into a Scion Squad/force. I really like that particular conspiracy theory.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm considering the theory that GW will make specific sub factions function differently with Storm Troopers. Cadian gets White Shields and Kasakin, Catachan get "Jungle Fighters" or something, DKoK get literal Storm Troopers. Everyone else gets the OPTION to pay for the upgrade to a standard squad into a Scion Squad/force. I really like that particular conspiracy theory.

I'm feeling this way too, at least in part. The only thing I see wrong with this is there'll probably be one that's quite simply the best and will almost always be taken. And it'll probably be Cadians.

I thought Stormtroopers were the elite force which was really a programme to cream off the top 1% for the inquisition. Karskin, Catachan Devils, etc. - they are local equivalents and will have aspects of the full gear but not everything. E.g. Karskin wouldn't routinely deep strike, etc.

That's what I gathered, too. And I suspect the Kasrkins will have the Cadian regiment and all the advantages that come with it when it comes to integrating them in a Cadian army, without Deep Strike. And possibly not having access to the Hotshot Volley Gun

 Rogzor87 wrote:
I'm personally not a fan of the current Cadian and Catachan models.

Fortunately there are a ton of third party models for Guardsmen out there. Wargames Atlantic do a few different looking ones, and there are plenty of 3D print files out there for just about any kind of guardsmen you could want. You're definitely not stuck with the overpriced official GW models if you don't want to use them (although keep in mind that you won't be able to use non-GW models in a GW shop or event).

 ZergSmasher wrote:

Fortunately there are a ton of third party models for Guardsmen out there. Wargames Atlantic do a few different looking ones, and there are plenty of 3D print files out there for just about any kind of guardsmen you could want. You're definitely not stuck with the overpriced official GW models if you don't want to use them (although keep in mind that you won't be able to use non-GW models in a GW shop or event).

Oh yeah I know. That's why I never bothered with third party models. Some do look better and are generally significantly cheaper. I also don't own a 3d printer ):

I do know you can do like head swaps/weap/bodies as long as like X% of the model is still GW/FW. I don't remember th exact percentage though. Unless they did away from that rule. Like I said it's been awhile since I last played. End of 5th edition which was like 10yrs ago.

I'm super looking forward to getting the tempestus start collecting then the Kasrkin/sentinels once those are released if before the codex.

I know this is the tactica but how difficult is the Baneblade to magnetize and such for all it's variants? It has like 8 versions right? Might be a little hard to magnetize yo where they all work/fit.

In addition, how would you rate you them? I am eyeing the Stormlord variant the most.

So it's technically impossible, as several of the variants are chasis-mounted main guns. The Shadowsword for instance, can't be magnetized and swapped out for the Standard Baneblade.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So it's technically impossible, as several of the variants are chasis-mounted main guns. The Shadowsword for instance, can't be magnetized and swapped out for the Standard Baneblade.

You can't do it by magnetizing only the gun itself but you absolutely can magnetize a Baneblade to have all of the variants. You magnetize the hull sections too and add a couple of sprue bits for them to connect to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rogzor87 wrote:
I know this is the tactica but how difficult is the Baneblade to magnetize and such for all it's variants? It has like 8 versions right? Might be a little hard to magnetize yo where they all work/fit.

It's a lot of work but it can be done. Look up "octoblade" for guides on how.

In addition, how would you rate you them? I am eyeing the Stormlord variant the most.

Bad:
* Shadowsword. Extreme niche unit that is overkill for most targets but at least decent at killing big things. Avoid it unless you have a weird LoW-heavy meta.
* Stormlord (Vostroyan regiment). You're putting all your eggs in one basket and will struggle against an opponent who can spread out to control the whole table but you can stack up a bunch of plasma command squads, buff them with +1 to hit from the stratagem (since the +1 to hit modifier on the tank applies to its passengers), and do some damage to wherever you put the one basket.

Very bad:
* Hellhammer. It's worse than its points in LRBTs but if you must have a big tank it's one of the least-bad options and it's the generalist option that is at least mediocre at everything.
* Stormblade. It's a weak main gun but because of weird pricing on its sponsons you can get a fully loaded one for a very low point cost. It's not great, but if you want a big tank it's worth considering.

WTF no:
* Everything else. GW can't do math and all the other options are just worse versions of one of the less-bad choices.

 Rogzor87 wrote:
I know this is the tactica but how difficult is the Baneblade to magnetize and such for all it's variants? It has like 8 versions right? Might be a little hard to magnetize yo where they all work/fit.

As mentioned, it's perfectly doable (if a bit more intricate than, say, magnetizing a Russ). If you search for "Octoblade", you should get a good number of tips/tutorials.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Bad:
* Shadowsword. Extreme niche unit that is overkill for most targets but at least decent at killing big things. Avoid it unless you have a weird LoW-heavy meta.
* Stormlord (Vostroyan regiment). You're putting all your eggs in one basket and will struggle against an opponent who can spread out to control the whole table but you can stack up a bunch of plasma command squads, buff them with +1 to hit from the stratagem (since the +1 to hit modifier on the tank applies to its passengers), and do some damage to wherever you put the one basket.

Very bad:
* Hellhammer. It's worse than its points in LRBTs but if you must have a big tank it's one of the least-bad options and it's the generalist option that is at least mediocre at everything.
* Stormblade. It's a weak main gun but because of weird pricing on its sponsons you can get a fully loaded one for a very low point cost. It's not great, but if you want a big tank it's worth considering.

WTF no:
* Everything else. GW can't do math and all the other options are just worse versions of one of the less-bad choices.

I have a friend offering to sell me one for less than $100 NIB. I am tempted to get it from him. That's why I am asking on the Baneblade and variants.

 Rogzor87 wrote:
I have a friend offering to sell me one for less than $100 NIB. I am tempted to get it from him. That's why I am asking on the Baneblade and variants.

TBH if you buy it just save it until the codex is released. Everything will probably change then anyway and hopefully our LoW won't be so terrible.

My BB is sitting on my forever shelf, never to be removed. They would have to make SERIOUS (See BROKEN) changes to it to make it even half way worth it. It's a giant magnet that can be easily tarpitted and knocked into it's last bracket then ignored.

Pass unless you, like me, really love the look of the model.

I find (some) the BB-variants to be decent now when sponsons are cheaper and they have a 2+ with AoC.

Use a Tank-Ace to dig them down and they have a 1+ with AoC.

Throw some psychic powers on them and they can potentially have a 0+ with AoC and be at -1 to hit.

And then you still have a dead tank on turn 3. Given the nature of Invulns that aren't really invulns these days, I fully expect the SS to get a "Ignores all saves for any vehicle, and does X+ MWs on a 6+ or something utterly stupid. Then it will be the hotness for all of half a second.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
And then you still have a dead tank on turn 3.

That's fair I suppose? Gives you at least 2 rounds of shooting.

 MinscS2 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
And then you still have a dead tank on turn 3.

That's fair I suppose? Gives you at least 2 rounds of shooting.

If you can call all it brings at BS4+ "shooting". That's if it doesn't get bracketed to 6+ shooting on turn 1. No thanks, I'd rather spend a quarter of my points on something that will actually make a difference.

And what are your recommendations for that, Fezzik?

Do you want competitive? Because more squads of Infantry with Plasma and HW seems pretty on fleek right now. As does a few Basalisks/Earthshakers. If you don't want to be ultra competitive, It all depends on what sub faction you are choosing. Cadians with Whiteshields, Catachan with SWS, Tallarn with Tanks and Tank Aces/TC, or Scions with Command Squads/Melta/Plasma.

Maybe the new tank that as of yet has no info? Also there were hints a while back (Big grain of salt) of a new sub faction?

Did anybody already give the Marauder (destroyer or bomber) a shot? 2+ save, armour of contempt and -1 to hit might give it some real staying power.

Still a 4+ on most of it, and it never really punches it's weight class. Better to take a squad of armored Sentinels with ACs/LCs.

Why the autocannon? And are the weapons for sentinels free now? That would be cool.

Weapons for sentinels are indeed free now. I have a marauder destroyer myself, but it hasn't been fielded so far. I agree that the 2+save and AoC look good, but it's still a very expensive T7 BS 4+ platform with underwhelming weapons.

Don't get me wrong, I want to use one, but I've not found a good way to do so yet.

If you arm it with hellstrikes you're looking at 370 points. I'd rather take two moreLeman Russ demolisher tanks with multi melta sponsons for those points.

I chose AC because I thought TAC. LC is kinda 1 and maybe 2-3 damage, if that. The Flamer kinda sucks. It's either the AC that can actually kill Primaris, or the LC that can maybe chip a Rhino. I don't see the value in fishing for 6s with the Multi las.

Ac kills 0.22 primaris on open. Lascannon does 0.2777 times 1d6 damage so kills on 2+. Goes better for lc when marine is in cover for sweet 2+ save,

Bit better for ac due to autowounds but not much

So I played my armoured company against the new Chaos dex this week. It was a complete failure of a game on my part. Some bad luck aside (my psyker exploded himself and took the other psyker next to him with him) it was a totally unbalanced matchup.

The sheer amount of buffs this player was able to stack made even my demolishers look like peashooters. When his forces reached my lines it was game over.

I have a tournament upcoming in october and I'd really like to bring a guard army.

On a table next to me a guy was doing pretty good with stormtroopers, tauroxes and vultures. Maximizing Hammer of the Emperor combined with the relative high AP of the hellguns.

So today I've ordered a bunch of scions, bringing my total to something like 70. I've also started printing Taurox alternatives (these orginials are so damn ugly).
I don't have any vultures, but I'm a big fan of the Valkyries, so I'm bringing two of those with rocket pods and heavy bolters.

I've got some questions for the more experienced stormtrooper commanders:

1) regarding the taurox-primes. Should I go for all gattling+volleyguns+stormbolters or mix a couple of battlecannon variants in?

2) I'm thinking two patrols so that I can bring 4 tempestor primes with command rods to maximize on orders. Should I look into relics and warlord traits or keep them simple?

3) Lambdan Lions for AP-3 hellguns right? The other regiments look kinda situational.

It's maybe worth noting that the rule of 3 means you couldn't take 4 tempestor primes.

The AP is good but at least one of the other options is also good, I forget.

What is the best loadout for chimeras? Is the extra 10 pts worth it to run double Heavy bolters or Heavy flamers?

 ThePie wrote:
What is the best loadout for chimeras? Is the extra 10 pts worth it to run double Heavy bolters or Heavy flamers?

Do you expect them to fire? If so, yes. If you expect them to die turn 1, no. Kinda depends on who you are playing. How tough a lot of things have got means even stuff like 2 heavy flamers isn't much of a boost when you are charged. If you are going flamers may as well be catachan and work that bonus into your other stuff as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DoctorDanny wrote:


I've got some questions for the more experienced stormtrooper commanders:

1) regarding the taurox-primes. Should I go for all gattling+volleyguns+stormbolters or mix a couple of battlecannon variants in?

2) I'm thinking two patrols so that I can bring 4 tempestor primes with command rods to maximize on orders. Should I look into relics and warlord traits or keep them simple?

3) Lambdan Lions for AP-3 hellguns right? The other regiments look kinda situational.

My unhelpful answer is... not played since the changes. I used to have a firebase of Dakka Taurox clustering around the 5++ save which meant 133rd Lambdan Lions, it also made the Dakka wagons (gatling/hotshot) a bit more effective. But now the troops have to start inside which has kinda killed that army.

3 primes, if you want more orders need a Commissar with the Master of Command warlord trait. But remember your guys get free vox now and an officer can order a clump of units near each other.

Yes, didn't think about the rule of three. A lord commissar with a warlord trait could be an option for extra orders, but if the the have command rods they should be good for six orders per turn.

I should definitely model some vox casters yeah!

I have around 100 points left (some more with one less prime) and was wondering what to do with them. Depending on how many scions I make to finish I might add in some command squads, but I could also add an inquisitor for some psychic threat. Eisenhorn looks tasty with his two casts and two denies. The model is also damn tasty, plus I've got a great demonhost model ready... Alternatively I could mix in some bullgryns, can't go wrong with those.

Thanks for the input guys.

Sentinels any good now? What about at 1k? When running Cadian, would you take 3 over a basic Russ or Multi-meltas on a Russ Tank Commander?

They are great scout units, easily able to capture an objective turn 1, and while extremely easy to kill/shift, they are also stupidly cheap. With a maxed out squad and flamers, you're still doing a silly ammount of auto-hitting shots while fishing for 6s. If you give them LCs or Auto-cannons, you are still giving an opponent something to worry about on turn 1. I don't think they are MUST TAKE OMG, but they have a use. The new rumored version may have a strong new profile. I'd take them just to have a team of 3 doing free scout move, then moving another 9, You are usually within flamer range, if not HK missile range. The Armored variant is the same cost with better weapons and toughness, I'd say go with that, load up on Plasma Cannons or MLs and go nuts. No one expects them to perform well, so they often get overlooked. 120points aint bad for what they bring to the table.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
With a maxed out squad and flamers, you're still doing a silly ammount of auto-hitting shots while fishing for 6s.

FYI: this does not work. Weapons that automatically hit do not roll at all and can not get the auto-wound on 6s to hit.

As for Sentinels in general, they're very bad. Yeah, you get a scout move, but a lot of the time that just gives your opponent something to charge on turn 1 for extra movement distance. Even with the cost reduction on the good weapons they still have laughably bad firepower for their point cost. And just to add insult to injury they lack the LRBT's rule reducing the automatic death for plasma overload so any roll of a 1 kills an entire Sentinel. So yeah, your opponent will overlook them, but only because they're busy killing your more effective stuff instead. You're way better off spending those points on more copies of your good stuff and giving yourself redundancy and target saturation.

(Also, missile launchers suck so badly they have an entire thread on how to buff them to be a real weapon. Always take lascannons instead, especially now that they're the same price.)

Update: I won the tournament 3-0 undefeated and didn't lose a single tank or Sentinel.

Nice one, what did you face and what was your list (roughly),

Sentinels are the ace in the hand that no one ever sees coming....

 DoctorDanny wrote:
Nice one, what did you face and what was your list (roughly),

++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Imperium - Astra Militarum) [58 PL, 3CP, 1,000pts] ++

+ Configuration +

Battle Size [3CP]: 2. Incursion (51-100 Total PL / 501-1000 Points)

Detachment Command Cost

Gametype: 4. Chapter Approved: War Zone Nephilim

Regimental Doctrine: Regiment: Cadian

+ Stratagems +

Tank Ace [-1CP]

+ HQ +

Lord Castellan Creed [3 PL, 2CP, 60pts]: Warlord

Tank Commander [12 PL, 195pts]: Heavy Bolter, Turret-mounted Demolisher Siege Cannon

Tank Commander [12 PL, 200pts]: Lascannon, Master Mechanic, Turret-mounted Demolisher Siege Cannon

+ Troops +

Infantry Squad [3 PL, 60pts]
. 5x Guardsman: 5x Lasgun
. Guardsman W/ Special Weapon: Plasma gun
. Guardsman w/ Vox-caster
. Heavy Weapon Team: Lascannon
. Sergeant: Plasma pistol, Power sword

Infantry Squad [3 PL, 60pts]
. 5x Guardsman: 5x Lasgun
. Guardsman W/ Special Weapon: Plasma gun
. Guardsman w/ Vox-caster
. Heavy Weapon Team: Lascannon
. Sergeant: Plasma pistol, Power sword

Infantry Squad [3 PL, 60pts]
. 5x Guardsman: 5x Lasgun
. Guardsman W/ Special Weapon: Plasma gun
. Guardsman w/ Vox-caster
. Heavy Weapon Team: Lascannon
. Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Power sword

Infantry Squad [3 PL, 60pts]
. 5x Guardsman: 5x Lasgun
. Guardsman W/ Special Weapon: Plasma gun
. Guardsman w/ Vox-caster
. Heavy Weapon Team: Lascannon
. Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Power sword

Infantry Squad [3 PL, 60pts]
. 5x Guardsman: 5x Lasgun
. Guardsman W/ Special Weapon: Plasma gun
. Guardsman w/ Vox-caster
. Heavy Weapon Team: Lascannon
. Sergeant: Boltgun, Power sword

Infantry Squad [3 PL, 60pts]
. 5x Guardsman: 5x Lasgun
. Guardsman W/ Special Weapon: Plasma gun
. Guardsman w/ Vox-caster
. Heavy Weapon Team: Lascannon
. Sergeant: Laspistol, Power sword

+ Elites +

Command Squad [2 PL, 25pts]
. Veteran: Lasgun
. Veteran w/ Medi-pack: Lasgun
. Veteran w/ Regimental Standard: Lasgun
. Veteran w/ Vox-caster: Lasgun

Platoon Commander [2 PL, -1CP, 25pts]: Plasma pistol, Power sword, Relic (Cadia): Relic of Lost Cadia, Stratagem: Relic

+ Fast Attack +

Armoured Sentinels [9 PL, 135pts]
. Armoured Sentinel: Hunter-killer missile, Lascannon
. Armoured Sentinel: Hunter-killer missile, Lascannon
. Armoured Sentinel: Hunter-killer missile, Lascannon

++ Total: [58 PL, 3CP, 1,000pts] ++

Created with BattleScribe

Went up against:

Orks (Warboss, Painboy, some character that generated an invuln save, 2x20 Boyz, Trukk w/Trukk Boyz, Deff Dread), where I took out the Trukk and Deff Dread turn 1, used some Infantry Squads to ensure not all my vehicles would be locked in melee, but positioned so I could alternate what was in melee versus what could shoot when stuff fell back.

Tyranids (Hive Tyrant, 30 Gaunts, 10 Ripper Swarms, 2 Parasites of Mortex, 4 Raveners, and a Mawloc), where I killed the Hive Tyrant turn 1, and took full advantage of my opponent deep striking some stuff without charging and advancing stuff instead of charging, and keeping his Raveners and Gaunts back to do actions and I took out all but 3 gaunts at the cost of 1.5 Infantry Squads.

Last opponent was Thousand Sons (Ahriman, Infernal Master, 2x5 Scarab Occults, 1x5 Rubrics, Maulerfiend, and a Chaos Spawn as extra points). He kept his Scarab Occults off the board to deep strike in turn 1, and we each positioned our armies to perfectly wipe out the other depending on who got first turn, and I got first turn. At the end of his turn 1, he just had the Infernal Master, Chaos Spawn, and 9 Rubrics and only took out 1.5 Infantry Squads.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Sentinels are the ace in the hand that no one ever sees coming....

Because nobody expects you to use such a bad unit. Sure, they'll be surprised, but they'll mostly be thankful you didn't realize your "ace" was really a three and you didn't bring a stronger unit.

Sentinels have a place as a cheap yet 'durable' backfield object holder in some of my lists. In a more offensive role they just can't stand up to the current meta anymore regardless of AoC.

I hope the new sentinels get the option to at least add more weapons. They should be able to carry a heavy weapon on both sides and add things like stormbolters or (twin) heavy stubbers.

They also look like they should be a lot more dangerous in CC.

Anyone notice that battlescribe no longer allows you to give a superheavy a tank ace?

It's likely a bug, as toggling the stratagem doesn't do anything, and the warhammer+ battleforge doesn't have an issue with it? It gives me an error when I add a HWT to my infantry squads, but it doesn't have an issue with my giving my Shadowsword Steadfast Leviathan.

Anyone know who to contact for battlescribe issues. If we aren't allowed to post it publicly, can someone please pm me?

https://github.com/BSData/wh40k/issues

Woah there fellas, I gotta stick up for sentinels here. They are cheap now, with lascannons, and tough with lotsa wounds. You can use them for all sorts of stuff. I'm taking 3x2 armoured and 3x1 scouts.

Indeed, somehow it always takes my opponents more firepower than they expect to clear my sentinels off the table, and they tend to try to deal with them first for some reason at the expense at shooting at my squishy objective sitters. So, I consider that a win in general. Their job is to die so my more important stuff can live turn 1. Plus every third game or so a sentinel with an HK/LC one-shots something worth double or triple its points with that strike first strike hard or whatever strat.

Honestly, I always have them in my list, just a question of how many I take because it's always easy to pull one or two out if I need the points.

Anyone else expecting the current version of sentinels to get the legends treatment? The "new" sentinels look to be uparmored only. Anyone seen a "scout" model in any of the promo releases?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Anyone else expecting the current version of sentinels to get the legends treatment? The "new" sentinels look to be uparmored only. Anyone seen a "scout" model in any of the promo releases?

From the GW preview:

The new miniature can be assembled as an Armoured Sentinel or – if you prefer to feel the wind in your hair as you slay the enemies of the God-Emperor – a lightweight Scout Sentinel.

And in the background on the right in the leaked image you can see what looks like the scout version.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
and they tend to try to deal with them first for some reason at the expense at shooting at my squishy objective sitters.

Taking a unit that relies on your opponent making major mistakes is not a good strategy.

Aecus Decimus wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
and they tend to try to deal with them first for some reason at the expense at shooting at my squishy objective sitters.

Taking a unit that relies on your opponent making major mistakes is not a good strategy.

Depends.

Are you trying to stratigize vs the nebulous hordes of unknown randos? If so, probably not the best approach.

Or are you taking a unit vs specific opponents whom you know how they'll react (even if you can't fathom thier reasoning for acting that way)?

ccs wrote:

Or are you taking a unit vs specific opponents whom you know how they'll react (even if you can't fathom thier reasoning for acting that way)?

You shouldn't be tailoring your list to gain an advantage over someone you know is a weaker player who makes major mistakes. Just play the game straight.

I play the game casually for fun. When I take sentinels, fun things happen. No need to overthink it.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

ccs wrote:

Or are you taking a unit vs specific opponents whom you know how they'll react (even if you can't fathom thier reasoning for acting that way)?

You shouldn't be tailoring your list to gain an advantage over someone you know is a weaker player who makes major mistakes. Just play the game straight.

If I know I can get a predictable response from an opponent I take that into account when playing or building a list against them.
I do this irrespective of their skill level.

In ideal world you know neither opponent nor army when you design list. That way you improve as a player

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that I did not invent distraction units.

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
I play the game casually for fun. When I take sentinels, fun things happen. No need to overthink it.

Then why are you in a discussion of tactics, if the only thing that matters is fun and you don't want to think about list or strategy optimization?

ccs wrote:

If I know I can get a predictable response from an opponent I take that into account when playing or building a list against them.
I do this irrespective of their skill level.

Yes, that would be list tailoring, and it's generally considered to be bad behavior. It's really considered bad behavior when you're tailoring against a weaker player you should be able to beat without questionably-ethical gimmicks.

Never said this is a single-opponent tactic. Some units work well for distracting any opponent into attacking them first even though they have less tactical importance than other things on the board. Also the fact that they take up a fair amount of space with their base size means you can position them in a way that they have to be dealt with first, especially with a 9" scout move 9" first turn move and a 2D6" more if you need it through Go Recon!

Especially now that there is typically more terrain on the board these days, you can cram them into choke points at intersections between buildings so that units will have to kill them in order to move anywhere. It's situational, but I've had that be effective against big units of large-base stuff that wants to be fast like bikes. In the right scenario, that unit has to waste its first turn of movement, which could be key to their plans.

I like Hellhounds for that too. With the inferno cannon and HF, it's frankly better for you if they're charged somewhere. And if they're in the way, your opponent might have to.

Hi all, quick question: I just measured my existing sentinel and heavy weapon bases and they're all 65mm. But I see everyone saying the current base size is 60mm. Which is the current correct size?

morpheusgotmeout wrote:
Hi all, quick question: I just measured my existing sentinel and heavy weapon bases and they're all 65mm. But I see everyone saying the current base size is 60mm. Which is the current correct size?

50mm for Heavy Weapons confirmed, and people are guessing 80mm for the Sentinels.

This is actually a blessing and a curse. If the Sentinel is an 80, that's quite a foot print. Especially if they keep the squadron rules, and you can field up to 3 in a unit. That's like an entire back field in 1 unit.

Arcanis161 wrote:


people are guessing 80mm for the Sentinels.

I'm referring to current base sizes. Not future. What is current base size for sentinel? 60 or 65mm?

morpheusgotmeout wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:


people are guessing 80mm for the Sentinels.

I'm referring to current base sizes. Not future. What is current base size for sentinel? 60 or 65mm?

Should be same base as a killa kan, so 60mm.

Something that might be noteworthy: As Leman Russ tanks seem to go to 13 wounds (implying brakets at 6 and 3 wounds) they do get slightly harder to braket/ kill with d2 and d3 weapons.

1st braket/2nd braket/dead vs. D2:
Old: 3/5/6 unsaved wounds
New: 4/5/7

Vs. D3:
Old: 2/3/4
New: 3/4/5

Not much, but it is... something

Well, with the new Heavy Las cannons being H1 S14 AP4 D6+6 (ignores invulns) I really want to know what they plan on making the fricking Shadow Sword. H6 with 190" range, S25 AP5 and damge (IF IT HITS YOU YOU LOSE THE MATCH)

Mordian Glory has a video with more leaks. Let's say that the Deathstrike is now the ultimate area dennying weapon. up to 16 MWs to all within 3 inches tops any current weapon. (probaly it's been nerfed but still)

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
Mordian Glory has a video with more leaks. Let's say that the Deathstrike is now the ultimate area dennying weapon. up to 16 MWs to all within 3 inches tops any current weapon. (probaly it's been nerfed but still)

M.

I F ING CALLED IT! (not on this forum, of course, but I called it nonetheless)

I decided to go ahead and build my Manticore/Deathstrike kit as a Manticore, and what do you know, they actually make the Deathstrike viable. Just goes to show, wait until you know what's what before you build, kids. I'll be significantly less salty if the Manticore remains good, but if I know GW it'll be total cabbage in the new book.

Mind you opponent has turn to move away. If object isn't that essential he can move away and be safe

That's the point. Contested objective. Place the marker so it hits your enemy but not your troops.If the enemy doesn't move it might be the end of him, if he does next turn you will score that objective.
Or vs IK with the Defend the Realm pledge stay and keep your honor, or move and get dishonored.

M.

And most scenarios have multiple objectives so abandoning 1 to chase others for 1 turn isn't always end of the world.

Or throw cheap sacrificial unit there

That's why you bring 3. 3 of them and some blocking units and you control the entire board.

tneva82 wrote:
Mind you opponent has turn to move away. If object isn't that essential he can move away and be safe

Is there ever an objective that isn't essential when they all count for primary scoring?

Not exactly sure if that fits here, but I guess the chance for an answer is highest:

Can anybody tell me what the 3rd Edition rule book page 163 states under "Hardened Fighters" and "Steadfast"?

I recently got a 3rd Edition Catachan Codex and while most is self explanatory, I would like to know what these abilities of Catachan Devils meant

Aecus Decimus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Mind you opponent has turn to move away. If object isn't that essential he can move away and be safe

Is there ever an objective that isn't essential when they all count for primary scoring?

You know right you don't have to hold all to score max right?

tneva82 wrote:
You know right you don't have to hold all to score max right?

If you hold so many objectives that you can give one up and still score max points the game is already over.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
..."Hardened Fighters"...

"The unit may ignore negative modifiers for Morale checks and test for regrouping (eg 50% casualties). In effect, the unit will always use its standard Leadership for these tests."

..."Steadfast"...

"The unit may attempt to regroup even when below 50%."

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
..."Hardened Fighters"...

"The unit may ignore negative modifiers for Morale checks and test for regrouping (eg 50% casualties). In effect, the unit will always use its standard Leadership for these tests."

..."Steadfast"...

"The unit may attempt to regroup even when below 50%."

Just to clarify, I do not believe this ignores the daemons -Ld shenanigans as that doesn't modify the morale rolls just your Ld yeah?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
I play the game casually for fun. When I take sentinels, fun things happen. No need to overthink it.

Then why are you in a discussion of tactics, if the only thing that matters is fun and you don't want to think about list or strategy optimization?

ccs wrote:

If I know I can get a predictable response from an opponent I take that into account when playing or building a list against them.
I do this irrespective of their skill level.

Yes, that would be list tailoring, and it's generally considered to be bad behavior. It's really considered bad behavior when you're tailoring against a weaker player you should be able to beat without questionably-ethical gimmicks.

You should NEVER tailor against certain opponent unless agreed upon before this(my brother tailors every game to keep it a bit more fair and still loses most) its extremely rude and actually makes your list worse.

As a note, building to defend against certain thing you KNOW is gonna be everywhere isn't tailoring, that's just reading the meta as you aren't doing it to a specific person, just preparing for what you know is gonna be brought(leviathan warrior spam pre nerf or troupe spam for instance)

Ecdain wrote:

You should NEVER tailor against certain opponent unless agreed upon before this(my brother tailors every game to keep it a bit more fair and still loses most) its extremely rude and actually makes your list worse.

As a note, building to defend against certain thing you KNOW is gonna be everywhere isn't tailoring, that's just reading the meta as you aren't doing it to a specific person, just preparing for what you know is gonna be brought(leviathan warrior spam pre nerf or troupe spam for instance)

We had a "TFG" at my old store who would try and tailor vs everyone, so what I would do is bring at least 2 armies with 2 list for each, and I'd choose at random which one I was going to play, but only AFTER he has his list ready. After a few times of doing this he would refuse to play against me and many others quickly picked up on this idea. He stopped coming to play shortly after he couldn't tailor anymore.

Guys, I really don't understand how we're still hung up on this. I don't tailor lists. I always bring at least one sentinel because I have found my opponents, whoever they are, tend to misjudge their importance because the sentinels push up the board quickly. So, they prioritize killing them, which helps me set up other stuff.

If that's tailoring, then literally all tactics are.

Meanwhile, big new tank! Really interested to see what the points cost comes in at for the Rogal Dorn and if Baneblades are back in the playable range with their free wargear.

Indeed. I have to say the idea of a super-heavy tank company as an army is extremely tempting - you don't build an army like that to be super-competitive but the idea that you don't just get meltagunned or small arms-ed to death if you do means you can actually put up a decent fight.

 TheNightWillEnd wrote:
If that's tailoring, then literally all tactics are.

Not really.

Taking Sentinels in the new codex because the move after shooting stratagem is really strong and you want to take advantage of it is not list tailoring. It's sound tactics that work regardless of who you're playing.

Taking Sentinels against a specific player/group because you know they have a psychological blind spot about evaluating them correctly and will always misplay the situation is list tailoring. You wouldn't do it in a tournament against random strangers because it's an ineffective tactic, the only reason you're putting the unit in your list is to exploit the fact that you know the specific player you're playing against in advance and can make choices aimed at exploiting that specific player's weaknesses.

Meanwhile, big new tank! Really interested to see what the points cost comes in at for the Rogal Dorn and if Baneblades are back in the playable range with their free wargear.

Baneblades will not be playable until GW fixes the core rules. One-way line of sight is a crippling problem, as is the fact that you need to cover the entire table in terrain to mitigate alpha strikes and leave few or no gaps where a Baneblade can fit. And free wargear or not they still look to be less efficient than their points in conventional tanks.

As a GSC player has any datasheets been blessed with the <regiment> keyword in the new codex? Like say the flyers?

So via a review on YT just went though and updated my army list, and is seems that the entire army had a price hike. I'd wager that many others are in the same position so what is everyone cutting to make points?

I want to run all 20 of my metal Tallarn Rough Riders, but at 20 PPM, 200pts a squad is costly, and right now I'm opting to cut my Basilisks to fit them but I'm not sure if that trade will be worth it.

I run a brigade and with platoon commander squads going to 75 (so up 25 from 25pt plt cmdr and 25pt cmd squad) I can't just plop a cheap order thrower in the back with a HWS. I've also had to decide how to fill my elite slots as I had used the command squads for that. I put in a Commissar and added a 2nd priest for now. I know everyone will probably say Scions or Orgyn but I again don't really want to cut any rough riders to make points work and I hate the Ogryn models (list has 8 infantry squads and 3 LRBT's + 1 TC)

locarno24 wrote:
Indeed. I have to say the idea of a super-heavy tank company as an army is extremely tempting - you don't build an army like that to be super-competitive but the idea that you don't just get meltagunned or small arms-ed to death if you do means you can actually put up a decent fight.

My 2k Ork army consisting of 3 Deff dreads 6x Killa Kans both Nauts and a Stompa salute you!

I think after this codex, Im done with Guard.

Well it's out and here's a quick summary.

Winners:
- Leman Russes: Mainly the Executioner and Vanquisher. Battle Tank is great with Gatekeeper but fairly average without it. Demolisher is okay. Rest of the variants aren't worth taking.
- Sentinels: Got a tiny increase but got even more durable. Great for slowing the enemy down.
- Rough Riders: Not durable, but when they get in combat they do massive damage. 10 of them can nearly kill a knight.
- Kasrkins: Can get some massive buffs and are still somewhat cheap for what they can do.

Losers:
- Catachans: Too expensive for what you get, cursed by a 20 year old kit and being stuck with just flamers.
- Scions: Can't take traits, far too expensive for what they can do, suffered from what's in the kit and lost a ton of duplicate weapon options.
- DKOK: Too expensive for what you get. Mini-transhuman doesn't do that much. As most of the anti-infantry weapons shooting at you will be S4 or S5. Best part is 3 special weapons, but you get degrading returns after 2. No voxcaster unless you get rid of the plasma gun.
- FOB: Too expensive for what they do. The anti-infantry version really should have had ignore line-of-sight. Lascannon option is definitely the best, but you can just take a Leman Russ for a few points more.
- Ministorum Priest: They're worse than what we previously had and worse than the current Sister one.

Potential Losers:
- Artillery, all of them. Only if GW remove the Balance Dataslate buff Guard has for indirect. Hitting on 5's and losing a point of AP kills many of them.

Everything else is largely okay, some options here are still better than others.

Jarms48 wrote:
- Sentinels: Got a tiny increase but got even more durable. Great for slowing the enemy down.

Think bigger. Sentinels absolutely murder stuff because of how they get every possible keyword. Take them with lascannons/plasma and missiles and you can buff then with full hit re-rolls, full wound re-rolls, +1 to hit, -1 AP, and +1 strength on all weapons if you want complete overkill. And then for a mere 1 CP you can either move them up to claim an objective from the thing you just killed or JSJ them back behind terrain. TBH Sentinels may be the biggest winners of the entire codex.

- Scions: Can't take traits, far too expensive for what they can do, suffered from what's in the kit and lost a ton of duplicate weapon options.

I'm not so down on them. They're still the cheapest codex option for grabbing RND/BotG (Krieg engineers are 48 points vs. 55 for storm troopers, but who knows how long FW rules will last) and they do have the advantage of being troops if you're trying to play an elite army. And TBH that's most of what they are good for in the current codex.

- Ministorum Priest: They're worse than what we previously had and worse than the current Sister one.

IMO the priest is a significant buff. Yeah, +1 attack is great in comparing dice math calculations but in a real game damage is meaningless if you can't apply it. Rough riders are the only unit we have that's worth caring about charging with and they already have sufficient offense to wipe out anything in their point range, their only weakness is their poor durability. +1 to your charge roll greatly increases the chance that your charge will succeed vs. leaving your unit exposed in the open and promptly slaughtered.

(I suppose technically bullgryn will sometimes want to charge to get the additional movement distance but it's not like you're taking them for their damage so whether or not they get an offensive buff doesn't mean much.)

- Artillery, all of them. Only if GW remove the Balance Dataslate buff Guard has for indirect. Hitting on 5's and losing a point of AP kills many of them.

I'm not sure about that. Basilisks got a major buff in number of shots, flat damage without needing a tank ace buff, and a doctrine option that pretty easily gives them +1 to hit. 4.5 shots at BS 4+ gives you 2.25 hits, 6.5 shots at BS 5+ gives you 2.15. Mortars going to S5 is also a pretty significant buff, although I'm not sure it's enough to make them relevant.

Priests are garbage.

They went from giving always giving away +1A in an AoE (hi Ogryns/Bullgryns/S4 Regiments) to "only" buffing Rough Riders - and have a 33,3% chance of failing.

I always took priests in my lists previously.
I doubt I'll ever use one now.

The field ordnance battery is potentially insanely good….considering Cadian is the best right now anyway… and I’m still leaning into the default regimental trait of auto wound on 6 to hit. Soooo ursela creed ordering a back line of artillery consisting of 4 bombast field guns with take aim… is 4d6 shots at str8 ap-3, 2 dam…with +1 to hit…. That’s insanely good for 65ppm… even worse vs chaos when you use the vengeance strat for +1 to wound… you are annihilating anything they target….
AND ursela can still issue 2x more orders with +1 str… even if indirect fire is nerfed they are still very good w ursela.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick question the relic banner that allows units within 6in to ignore to hit modifiers and fnp… would that ignore indirect fire to hit penalty?

gungo wrote:
Soooo ursela creed ordering a back line of artillery consisting of 4 bombast field guns with take aim… is 4d6 shots at str8 ap-3, 2 dam…with +1 to hit…. That’s insanely good for 65ppm…

It's good, but not that good. 130 points gets you a pair of guns doing 7 shots average at S8/AP-3/D2 with +1 to hit, a Basilisk gets you 6.5 average shots at S10/AP-3/D2 and has easy access to +1 to hit and/or tank orders. And the Basilisk has way better speed and durability. IMO FOBs may have a role but they're not obviously overpowered.

Quick question the relic banner that allows units within 6in to ignore to hit modifiers and fnp… would that ignore indirect fire to hit penalty?

No. The indirect penalty, if it applies, is a modifier to the unit's BS not to the hit roll. This is why it stacks with -1 to hit debuffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:
They went from giving always giving away +1A in an AoE (hi Ogryns/Bullgryns/S4 Regiments) to "only" buffing Rough Riders - and have a 33,3% chance of failing.

They went from buffing a gimmick list to providing a strong buff to one of the best units in the codex. I'll take that trade every time.

The field artillery unit is set to 2 models per unit.

I want to punch the person who wrote that rule.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The field artillery unit is set to 2 models per unit.

I want to punch the person who wrote that rule.

Agh early leak I saw had it as 2-4 size unit….


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

gungo wrote:
Soooo ursela creed ordering a back line of artillery consisting of 4 bombast field guns with take aim… is 4d6 shots at str8 ap-3, 2 dam…with +1 to hit…. That’s insanely good for 65ppm…

It's good, but not that good. 130 points gets you a pair of guns doing 7 shots average at S8/AP-3/D2 with +1 to hit, a Basilisk gets you 6.5 average shots at S10/AP-3/D2 and has easy access to +1 to hit and/or tank orders. And the Basilisk has way better speed and durability. IMO FOBs may have a role but they're not obviously overpowered.

Quick question the relic banner that allows units within 6in to ignore to hit modifiers and fnp… would that ignore indirect fire to hit penalty?

No. The indirect penalty, if it applies, is a modifier to the unit's BS not to the hit roll. This is why it stacks with -1 to hit debuffs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:
They went from giving always giving away +1A in an AoE (hi Ogryns/Bullgryns/S4 Regiments) to "only" buffing Rough Riders - and have a 33,3% chance of failing.

They went from buffing a gimmick list to providing a strong buff to one of the best units in the codex. I'll take that trade every time.

Basilisk is 140pts and does not have the regimental or platoon keywords like FOB… it only has artillery and vehicle keywords… which means you need to use a tank to baby sit your artillery and give it tank orders (which work on artilery squadrons) to give it gunners kill on sight for reroll 1 to hit… I don’t see where that +1 to hit is easy for them (taking bombadiers instead of the default regiment ability is bad trade) regardless you are correct basilisks are a more durable unit and needs less support but you trade better accuracy for more str and more durability. (Speed really doesn’t matter on indirect artillery). I’ll likely use ursela to order 2x units of 2 Bombast field guns and a lascannon or autocannon (which are much better with +1 str and ap) hwt.

even Cadian hwt aren’t bad if you take a command squad you can give a hwt reroll hits and wounds of 1, take aim aura for +1 to hit and +1 ap, and ursela gives them 1 str. Making for a decent acurate hwt squad.

gungo wrote:
even Cadian hwt aren’t bad if you take a command squad you can give a hwt reroll hits and wounds of 1, take aim aura for +1 to hit and +1 ap, and ursela gives them 1 str. Making for a decent acurate hwt squad.

I don't like using Special Characters to stack buffs (or in general) as they just seem like a crutch (the amount of Chaos armies that all have Dooby leading them makes me sick). Having said that, I presume everything you just said could apply to Mortar units, yes?

All this moaning about artillery being nerfed raises a question from me: did the artillery tanks' weapons get the Turret Weapon rule, like the Leman Russ and Rogal Dorn's turrets? The Goonhammer review seemed to suggest that it wasn't just the tanks that got that rule on their weapons. If they did, that would mitigate their hit penalties when shooting out of LOS, no?

gungo wrote:
Basilisk is 140pts and does not have the regimental or platoon keywords like FOB… it only has artillery and vehicle keywords…

Basilisks, like all non-auxilia units, have REGIMENTAL.

I don’t see where that +1 to hit is easy for them

+1 to hit from the doctrine. And the default ability is highly overrated IMO. It's an easy ability to quantify because it's a straight dice math buff but I think most armies will want a pair of more specialized options. If you're already taking, say, the ability to move and disembark you have to pick a second trait. And +1 to hit for all of your artillery is an auto-take if you're investing heavily in artillery.

to give it gunners kill on sight for reroll 1 to hit

Or you give max blast shots and have 9 shots vs. the FOB unit's average of 7.

(Speed really doesn’t matter on indirect artillery).

Speed is how you win games. This is why the two best traits are the ability to disembark after moving and +1"/2" movement distance. A Basilisk is faster to get out of trouble, faster to get LOS on a target if necessary, and faster to move up and claim objectives.

Now, is this a decisive advantage? No, that's why I listed it at the end. But when the Basilisk is equal or better at indirect shooting and also has those bonus advantages the choice is pretty clear.

even Cadian hwt aren’t bad if you take a command squad you can give a hwt reroll hits and wounds of 1, take aim aura for +1 to hit and +1 ap, and ursela gives them 1 str. Making for a decent acurate hwt squad.

No, mortar HWS are really bad. You want your buffs on your most effective units, wasting a heavy support slot on a 50 point mortar unit is not an efficient use of those buffs. Mortar HWS are what you take in a 1000 point game when you have 50 points left and can't fit in a real unit, you don't build your plans around them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
All this moaning about artillery being nerfed raises a question from me: did the artillery tanks' weapons get the Turret Weapon rule, like the Leman Russ and Rogal Dorn's turrets? The Goonhammer review seemed to suggest that it wasn't just the tanks that got that rule on their weapons. If they did, that would mitigate their hit penalties when shooting out of LOS, no?

They did not. LoW did get it on their primary weapons though, as did Hydras, Chimeras, and the Hellhound line.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

gungo wrote:
Basilisk is 140pts and does not have the regimental or platoon keywords like FOB… it only has artillery and vehicle keywords…

Basilisks, like all non-auxilia units, have REGIMENTAL.

I don’t see where that +1 to hit is easy for them

+1 to hit from the doctrine. And the default ability is highly overrated IMO. It's an easy ability to quantify because it's a straight dice math buff but I think most armies will want a pair of more specialized options. If you're already taking, say, the ability to move and disembark you have to pick a second trait. And +1 to hit for all of your artillery is an auto-take if you're investing heavily in artillery.

to give it gunners kill on sight for reroll 1 to hit

Or you give max blast shots and have 9 shots vs. the FOB unit's average of 7.

(Speed really doesn’t matter on indirect artillery).

Speed is how you win games. This is why the two best traits are the ability to disembark after moving and +1"/2" movement distance. A Basilisk is faster to get out of trouble, faster to get LOS on a target if necessary, and faster to move up and claim objectives.

Now, is this a decisive advantage? No, that's why I listed it at the end. But when the Basilisk is equal or better at indirect shooting and also has those bonus advantages the choice is pretty clear.

even Cadian hwt aren’t bad if you take a command squad you can give a hwt reroll hits and wounds of 1, take aim aura for +1 to hit and +1 ap, and ursela gives them 1 str. Making for a decent acurate hwt squad.

No, mortar HWS are really bad. You want your buffs on your most effective units, wasting a heavy support slot on a 50 point mortar unit is not an efficient use of those buffs. Mortar HWS are what you take in a 1000 point game when you have 50 points left and can't fit in a real unit, you don't build your plans around them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
All this moaning about artillery being nerfed raises a question from me: did the artillery tanks' weapons get the Turret Weapon rule, like the Leman Russ and Rogal Dorn's turrets? The Goonhammer review seemed to suggest that it wasn't just the tanks that got that rule on their weapons. If they did, that would mitigate their hit penalties when shooting out of LOS, no?

They did not. LoW did get it on their primary weapons though, as did Hydras, Chimeras, and the Hellhound line.

born soldiers is just straight up better it’s not just easy quantifiable it makes basic lasguns into a much bigger threat and greatly improves every ranged weapon efficiency. plus expert bombadiers isn’t an easy way to get +1 to hit either. U literally need a vox caster or sentinel within 12in of a target to get +1 to hit. None of which is easy. Regardless I was posting because the person above you said FOB are bad while bombast field gun is arguably one of our best artilery.

You are comparing the speed on obj secured troops to artillery. I mean I don’t feel the need to even argue why that’s dumb.

You do realize hwt are the ONLY “artillery” that’s core keyword… in other words those aura buffs only work on them not FOB or real artillery (basilisk, manticore). You can’t just put those command squad buffs on other units as the vast majority are NOT core. And I never said to take motar hws, making your lascannon str10, ap-4 reroll hit and wound 1, and +1 to hit w born soldiers makes them super accurate. Heck even beleaguered auto cannon is much better at str8 ap-3 w the above. However I agree it’s likely not worth taking hwt and a command squad just to make them viable but ursela will be throwing out multiple +1 str orders anyway.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

It's good, but not that good. 130 points gets you a pair of guns doing 7 shots average at S8/AP-3/D2 with +1 to hit, a Basilisk gets you 6.5 average shots at S10/AP-3/D2 and has easy access to +1 to hit and/or tank orders. And the Basilisk has way better speed and durability. IMO FOBs may have a role but they're not obviously overpowered.

It's S7 AP-2 which makes it far worse. It's literally just a D6 AP-2 autocannon. Sure, take aim pushes it to AP-3 and gives it a +1 to Hit, but it's still S7.

Jarms48 wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

It's good, but not that good. 130 points gets you a pair of guns doing 7 shots average at S8/AP-3/D2 with +1 to hit, a Basilisk gets you 6.5 average shots at S10/AP-3/D2 and has easy access to +1 to hit and/or tank orders. And the Basilisk has way better speed and durability. IMO FOBs may have a role but they're not obviously overpowered.

It's S7 AP-2 which makes it far worse. It's literally just a D6 AP-2 autocannon. Sure, take aim pushes it to AP-3 and gives it a +1 to Hit, but it's still S7.

ursela creed issuing take aim bumps it to str8… at 65ppm hitting 2 of those in a unit. Makes them comparable to a basilisk which can’t take regimental orders as it doesn’t have the platoon keyword. So 130pts for 2d6 s8 ap-3 2dam with +1 to hit and indirect is really good. Plus ursela creed can issue orders 2 more times… making a great backfield artilery commander issuing orders.

Everyone seems to be thinking that the relic banner: Finial of the Nemrodesh 1st is really strong, but was is the exact wording of it? Because if you ignore all hit modifiers, wouldn't that include the +1 to hit from the order: Take aim!

Agusto wrote:
Everyone seems to be thinking that the relic banner: Finial of the Nemrodesh 1st is really strong, but was is the exact wording of it? Because if you ignore all hit modifiers, wouldn't that include the +1 to hit from the order: Take aim!

It looks strong on the leaks but I need to see the final wording on the relic PLUS does it remove the effect from a normal banner? (Reroll 1 to wound) if it stacks it’s pretty awesome… if it stacks as I hope a command squad with just a banner gives reroll 1 to hit and wound, ignore negative hit penalties, and issues 2 orders. That’s not bad. If it doesn’t stack and it removes all modifiers to hit it sucks..

The other issue I have is opportunity cost…this means you need to pick up a full command squad and commander.. add whatever specials, medic, banner, addons, etc you want and it’s not really cheap. Then take a relic -1cp cost..

I rather just take ursela… same reroll 1 commander aura, +1 str on orders, and a high leadership (9) that with born soldiers is basically going to make most guard units within 6in of her mostly immune to morale. And the ability to use reroll ability 2x…

From what I have read, it is "Ignore hit modifiers", so that must mean + and -, right?

If it doesn't specify negatives then yes + hit, - hit, all the same. Basically same as daemon save then which doesn't care if you are in cover with +1 to save roll spells etc. You still don't get any help.

But of course not having seen actual photo from book can't say. Have only seen somebody quoting rules and those sometimes missing details.

I know GW are bad at rules writinge, but even I am willing to believe they managed to remember to put the phrase "any or all X modifiiers" in.

It sounds like it goes well with a 30 Kasrkin face roll build and if I was listening right to the description of the banner it does even more than just ignore modifiers, was it also ignoing FNPs and phase caps or have I mixed it up with something else?

Yes, it also ignores all wound blockers.

gungo wrote:
ursela creed issuing take aim bumps it to str8… at 65ppm hitting 2 of those in a unit. Makes them comparable to a basilisk which can’t take regimental orders as it doesn’t have the platoon keyword. So 130pts for 2d6 s8 ap-3 2dam with +1 to hit and indirect is really good. Plus ursela creed can issue orders 2 more times… making a great backfield artilery commander issuing orders.

Just wait until Guard lose the balance dataslate nLoS exemption. All Guard artillery will be trash after that.

This is exactly how you ruin a faction. Make it so a full squad of Kasarkin with their flag and Ursula ordering them around is just as deadly if not deadlier to a full squad of plague marines, than a squad of heavy intercessors. This is not balance. HotE needs to die and go away.

G'day mates this is regarding current Tallarn tank order (8th Ed codex):

Scenario: Tank Commander starts turn in engagement range of enemy. Use Tank Order 'Get Around Behind them' to move after shooting.

Question (2 parts): After shooting in combat, big guns never tire, can I then move the 6" which takes me out of engagement range? If so, that means I didn't fall back, and therefore I could also charge?

There doesn't seem to be any FAQ about this. The rules are worded:

"The ordered model can move up to 6" in this phase, either before or after it shoots, as if it were the Movement phase. This does not affect how far the vehicle has moved for the purposes of determining how many times it can fire its turret weapon (as described in the Grinding Advance ability)."

I'm not sure if the key is in the 'as if it were the movement phase' which may mean that yhe 6" counts as a fall back? Or maybe it's just literally you just move the model no questions asked... I can't figured this out.

Thoughts?

gungo wrote:

Agusto wrote:
Everyone seems to be thinking that the relic banner: Finial of the Nemrodesh 1st is really strong, but was is the exact wording of it? Because if you ignore all hit modifiers, wouldn't that include the +1 to hit from the order: Take aim!

It looks strong on the leaks but I need to see the final wording on the relic PLUS does it remove the effect from a normal banner? (Reroll 1 to wound) if it stacks it’s pretty awesome… if it stacks as I hope a command squad with just a banner gives reroll 1 to hit and wound, ignore negative hit penalties, and issues 2 orders. That’s not bad. If it doesn’t stack and it removes all modifiers to hit it sucks..

The other issue I have is opportunity cost…this means you need to pick up a full command squad and commander.. add whatever specials, medic, banner, addons, etc you want and it’s not really cheap. Then take a relic -1cp cost..

I rather just take ursela… same reroll 1 commander aura, +1 str on orders, and a high leadership (9) that with born soldiers is basically going to make most guard units within 6in of her mostly immune to morale. And the ability to use reroll ability 2x…

It's ignore "any or all" modifiers and does not specify any wargear/abilities are lost to get this. Retaining positive modifiers and reroll 1's seems fine. The ignoring wound reducing rules bit is probably the strong part.

A question on sentinels and plasma cannons - new cannon inflicts a mortal to the bearer on a 1 to hit instead of killing the bearer outright. How does this work on wound allocation as you could potentially have a unit of 3 all taking 1 mortal - do they all take 1 wound or is the bearer now classified as the unit not the model? Seems like it could screw up normal wound allocation restrictions.

 Insularum wrote:

A question on sentinels and plasma cannons - new cannon inflicts a mortal to the bearer on a 1 to hit instead of killing the bearer outright. How does this work on wound allocation as you could potentially have a unit of 3 all taking 1 mortal - do they all take 1 wound or is the bearer now classified as the unit not the model? Seems like it could screw up normal wound allocation restrictions.

As has been done on similar units time and time again throughout the edition (either via FAQs or erratas) you consider it as the "squad" suffering a mortal wounds, therefore if you roll a 1 on each cannon the 3 mortals will all go to 1 sentinel.
GW wasn't smart enough to avoid falling into the same pit once more because, well, it's GW, but aside from that you just dump all the mortals from the squadron into one guy.

I was tempted by the Death Strike but reading the 40mm base size for objectives kind of makes what little use that DeathStrike could have been vanish. I think the intent might have been that it cancels objectives but I guess they forgot to consider the base size?

 Insularum wrote:

A question on sentinels and plasma cannons - new cannon inflicts a mortal to the bearer on a 1 to hit instead of killing the bearer outright. How does this work on wound allocation as you could potentially have a unit of 3 all taking 1 mortal - do they all take 1 wound or is the bearer now classified as the unit not the model? Seems like it could screw up normal wound allocation restrictions.

Pretty sure you're suppose to roll every weapon separately. Fast rolling is good when you don't have multiples of the same weapon that can hurt different models.

Sentinel 1: Roll shots.
Sentinel 2: Roll shots.
Sentinel 3: Roll shots.

Sentinel 1: Roll hits. 1 overheats. Takes 1 wound.
Sentinel 2: Roll hits.
Sentinel 3: Roll hits. 2 overheats. Takes 2 wounds.

The reason you do this is overheat is an ability tagged to the individual weapon, not the unit.

I dont think you can allocate wounds like that, I believe it goes into a pool and is dished out one model at a time.

Swastakowey wrote:
I was tempted by the Death Strike but reading the 40mm base size for objectives kind of makes what little use that DeathStrike could have been vanish. I think the intent might have been that it cancels objectives but I guess they forgot to consider the base size?

The deathstrike main use is against sisters that hide 3 units of repentias behind a wall and send out one at a time fully buffed by the slave-driver and Vhal (or any other army that plays a similar game)
Even if the marker doesn't cover the whole objective you can just put it so it touches the side of the objective that you can't see/is in ruins forcing your opponent to stay in the open in order to control it.
Against veichle heavy armies you can make the movement phase for some of their models an headscratcher by placing the marker in the corridors between terrain at the "edge" or their move distance (unless you're playing on Planet Bowling Ball and there's no terrain to impede them whatsoever but let's assume you aren't playing a beer&pretzels game)§

The boy does have some usage but for 160 points killing just 4 marines with it half of your games is probably a bit too much of a gamble. It's more of a psycological deterrent that a solid piece.

Swastakowey wrote:
I dont think you can allocate wounds like that, I believe it goes into a pool and is dished out one model at a time.

3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

This isn’t applicable as the wounds are not coming from a targeted attack.

Zompa wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
I was tempted by the Death Strike but reading the 40mm base size for objectives kind of makes what little use that DeathStrike could have been vanish. I think the intent might have been that it cancels objectives but I guess they forgot to consider the base size?

The deathstrike main use is against sisters that hide 3 units of repentias behind a wall and send out one at a time fully buffed by the slave-driver and Vhal (or any other army that plays a similar game)
Even if the marker doesn't cover the whole objective you can just put it so it touches the side of the objective that you can't see/is in ruins forcing your opponent to stay in the open in order to control it.
Against veichle heavy armies you can make the movement phase for some of their models an headscratcher by placing the marker in the corridors between terrain at the "edge" or their move distance (unless you're playing on Planet Bowling Ball and there's no terrain to impede them whatsoever but let's assume you aren't playing a beer&pretzels game)§

The boy does have some usage but for 160 points killing just 4 marines with it half of your games is probably a bit too much of a gamble. It's more of a psycological deterrent that a solid piece.

The plasma barrage is scary enough on an objective with its 6+d3 range and it’s d3+1 (2-3) or 2d3 (4-5) or d3+3 (6) to clear an objective…. But the big junk on this model is if you roll a 1 absolutely makes this model a complete waste and do nothing for 150pts that’s nonsense when there is several ways already to mitigate this. With destroying the deathstrike, moving away from the effective deathstrike radius to simply potentially sacrificing another unit and wasting the deathstrike… it’s almost useful but that does nothing on 1 needs to go.

Personally I rather see the Godspear size go to 2+d3 inches to be scary enough to clear an objective or risk getting hit… the vortex is fine since it’s 50% chance of staying each turn but that 1 doing nothing has to go.

Jarms48 wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
I dont think you can allocate wounds like that, I believe it goes into a pool and is dished out one model at a time.

3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

This isn’t applicable as the wounds are not coming from a targeted attack.

Yeah this is what confuses me - I dish out wounds to the bearer of the overheated gun, then when you attack me I allocate failed saves to models, prioritising damaged models first. If 2+ models have taken damage already am I allowed/expected to spread incoming attacks between them?

 Insularum wrote:
Yeah this is what confuses me - I dish out wounds to the bearer of the overheated gun, then when you attack me I allocate failed saves to models, prioritising damaged models first. If 2+ models have taken damage already am I allowed/expected to spread incoming attacks between them?

No, you still choose a model. The only thing that changes is that when the first model dies you must choose the next wounded model.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Insularum wrote:
Yeah this is what confuses me - I dish out wounds to the bearer of the overheated gun, then when you attack me I allocate failed saves to models, prioritising damaged models first. If 2+ models have taken damage already am I allowed/expected to spread incoming attacks between them?

No, you still choose a model. The only thing that changes is that when the first model dies you must choose the next wounded model.

I'm probably not being very clear so apologies for that.

On old plasma guns, the wording is on a 1 the bearer dies - it has to be the guy with the plasma gun not just some random model in a unit even if there is one already wounded. On the new guns the sentinel carries it is still worded as the bearer but now just a mortal wound rather than remove from play. Presumably bearer still means "model with gun" so even if another model is already damaged the mortal goes to the model with the gun - this can lead to rare situations where there are multiple wounded models in a unit.

Is there a rule I've overlooked in play here? As the controlling player allocates damage and they must select already wounded models, what is to stop a player from allocating wounds to 1 damaged sentinel until it drops down to 1 wound remaining, then moving on to the next damaged sentinel (and potentially then the next in a full size unit)? In an extreme case where a full unit of 3 with plasma all overheat once, you could allocate up to 15 wounds evenly across the unit before removing any models from play.

Right, so the new Sentinels are a multi-model unit. As in 3-5 I think. That being the case, you can't possibly have multiple wounded models in a single unit. The unit takes the MW, not the Model. Like LRBT tanbk squads.

 Insularum wrote:

Is there a rule I've overlooked in play here? As the controlling player allocates damage and they must select already wounded models, what is to stop a player from allocating wounds to 1 damaged sentinel until it drops down to 1 wound remaining, then moving on to the next damaged sentinel (and potentially then the next in a full size unit)? In an extreme case where a full unit of 3 with plasma all overheat once, you could allocate up to 15 wounds evenly across the unit before removing any models from play.

I just explained why.

3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

There is no issue here. You must choose a model to take wounds first. If you have 2 wounded models you still have to choose one of them. When one of them die, you must choose the other wounded model, only after this can you choose models with no wounds.

Remember, as I said in another post, you're not suppose to fast roll. Fast rolling is something we do to speed the game up, but the rulebook outlines you're suppose to do one at a time.

So if you take 10 wounds and have 3 models. You select 1 model and keep rolling individually until that 1 model is dead and then you select another model.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Insularum wrote:

Is there a rule I've overlooked in play here? As the controlling player allocates damage and they must select already wounded models, what is to stop a player from allocating wounds to 1 damaged sentinel until it drops down to 1 wound remaining, then moving on to the next damaged sentinel (and potentially then the next in a full size unit)? In an extreme case where a full unit of 3 with plasma all overheat once, you could allocate up to 15 wounds evenly across the unit before removing any models from play.

I just explained why.

3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

There is no issue here. You must choose a model to take wounds first. If you have 2 wounded models you still have to choose one of them. When one of them die, you must choose the other wounded model, only after this can you choose models with no wounds.

Remember, as I said in another post, you're not suppose to fast roll. Fast rolling is something we do to speed the game up, but the rulebook outlines you're suppose to do one at a time.

So if you take 10 wounds and have 3 models. You select 1 model and keep rolling individually until that 1 model is dead and then you select another model.

That makes sense - it was the "this phase" bit I overlooked - there still might be some room for people being gamey about this over 2 phases but looks like you cannot actively split incoming attacks in one phase.

Thanks for the help!

Jarms48 wrote:

 Insularum wrote:

Is there a rule I've overlooked in play here? As the controlling player allocates damage and they must select already wounded models, what is to stop a player from allocating wounds to 1 damaged sentinel until it drops down to 1 wound remaining, then moving on to the next damaged sentinel (and potentially then the next in a full size unit)? In an extreme case where a full unit of 3 with plasma all overheat once, you could allocate up to 15 wounds evenly across the unit before removing any models from play.

I just explained why.

3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

There is no issue here. You must choose a model to take wounds first. If you have 2 wounded models you still have to choose one of them. When one of them die, you must choose the other wounded model, only after this can you choose models with no wounds.

Remember, as I said in another post, you're not suppose to fast roll. Fast rolling is something we do to speed the game up, but the rulebook outlines you're suppose to do one at a time.

So if you take 10 wounds and have 3 models. You select 1 model and keep rolling individually until that 1 model is dead and then you select another model.

Of course the mw coming from overheating isn't attack targeting sentinel unit so rules related to attacks isn't relevant.

GW can't write rules well. What else is new?-)

tneva82 wrote:
GW can't write rules well. What else is new?-)

Was just clarifying how it works.

* * * * *

After doing a deeper dive into the codex, I've updated my winners and losers list.

Winners:
- Cadian Shock Troops: Just the best value troop unit we have now.
- Kasrkin: These guys are just amazing.
- Rough Riders: Not amazingly durable but their damage is fantastic.
- Sentinels: Forward deploy Scout Sentinels can win you the game. Amazingly cheap for the durability they bring. Take aim or double model count orders on plasma cannon Armoured Sentinels is pretty nice. If they come from Creed you get S9 AP-4 plasma cannons.
- Leman Russ Tanks: Mainly the Executioner and Vanquisher. Battle tank is nice, but overshadowed by the Executioner. Demolisher is nice with double model count for blast order.
- Hydra: Turret weapon, so 8 AP-2 autocannon shots hitting on 3+. This thing is just a better Castigator for far cheaper. Shreds aircraft with +2 to hit and double shots against them, so still hitting on 3+ despite aircraft having -1 to hit.

I expected many of these to be nerfed. Likely the only safe ones from nerfs in this list is Shock Troops and Hydras.

Potential Winners:
- DKOK Death Riders: Even if it’s just keyword changes. New melee order lets them hit on 3+ which is massive, can get far better traits than the old DKOK one, and Commissar orders. Not as damaging as Rough Riders of course but far more durable. As I said though, highly depends on the keyword changes.

Losers:
- Catachans: Just sad, overcosted and incredibly restrictive options. By far the worst rule of the named regiment unique units.
- DKOK Guardsmen: Mini-transhuman on a T3 model is incredibly situational, most anti-infantry weapons shooting at you will be S4 and S5. Can’t take a vox if you have a plasma gun. I don’t think they’re terrible, but probably 5 points overcosted which really starts to add up for Guard.
- Pure Scions: I stress pure here, as Scions will still have a place as objective grabbers for regular Guard, but getting no regiment traits when taking them pure is rough. Especially when their datasheets in a pure army are so limited. All their "buffs" are essentially rolled into Kasrkins, the only things they really have over them is built in deepstrike and synergy with the scion WLT's. You also can't receive orders after deep strike.
- Regimental Preacher: Just far more limiting than the 8th edition one and worse than the current Sister one.
- Ratlings: Still just not a great unit. Now that the Scout Sentinel has forward deploy there's no use for them.
- FOB: Just too expensive for what you get. The lascannons are good and currently the only option really worth taking, but for a few points more you can just take a Russ with similar firepower and far better durability. The anti-infantry missiles should have been indirect.
- HWS: Got more expensive, no durability increases so no reason to take anything other than mortars still and one squad still takes up a whole HS slot.
- Taurox Prime: Could have really benefitted from turret weapon. It's the only heavy firepower Scions get. Taurox battle cannon is still terrible, Taurox gatling cannon got nerfed, Taurox missile launcher suffers from being purely a missile launcher. No 5++ really hurts them.

Potential Losers:
- Everything with indirect fire. Really depends if Guard lose the nLoS exemption.
- Tech-priest: If guard keep AoC then there's really no point to bring one. 5++ means nothing if you have 2+ and AoC.

Everything else is okay.

So looking at the codex it seems the relic banner says you “can” remove “any” or all.. hit modifiers. And is in addition to regimental banner reroll 1 to wound. It’s extremely good and it along w a ogryn body guard that you can revive w a medic is strong hq unit. I’m assuming ogryns bodyguards without -1 dam like every other ogryn/bullgryn is deliberate.
Codex looks good imho (mainly cadians with born soldiers) but I’m happy. Now to see what happens to Fw units.

gungo wrote:
So looking at the codex it seems the relic banner says you “can” remove “any” or all.. hit modifiers. And is in addition to regimental banner reroll 1 to wound. It’s extremely good and it along w a ogryn body guard that you can revive w a medic is strong hq unit. I’m assuming ogryns bodyguards without -1 dam like every other ogryn/bullgryn is deliberate.
Codex looks good imho (mainly cadians with born soldiers) but I’m happy. Now to see what happens to Fw units.

Quoting from n&r

 Polonius wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dirk Reinecke wrote:
So, looking at the codex, the Ogryn Bodyguard and Nork don't have the -1 damage that the regular Ogryn and Bullgryn have. That is a pity.

Do you think that's intentional(ly inconsistent) or something they forgot about?

it's at the top of page 89. Under "Abilities" it states that all bodyguard models gain three rules, including Wall of Muscle (damage reduction).

Ok that’s good for bodyguards but there is some strong combos in that dex.

So, do we already know how exactly this platoon thingy works out in the new codex? Which units can I pack in there?

Unless I'm missing something the platoon thing is only a key word.

Also earlier people had been talking about the banner relic and how it interacts with modifiers and the wording of the rules let's you ignore any or all modifiers so you can keep the positive ones

I'm having my first battle tomorrow, and while making my army I noticed that the Leman Russ turret weapons don't have point costs... so are they all free?

 AtoMaki wrote:
I'm having my first battle tomorrow, and while making my army I noticed that the Leman Russ turret weapons don't have point costs... so are they all free?

Correct, all turrets have the same cost and are built into the base price of the unit.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
So, do we already know how exactly this platoon thingy works out in the new codex? Which units can I pack in there?

Platoon is a rule that allows orders to bounce for infantry, vehicles need the squadron rule to allow orders to bounce. RIP to squads larger than 10!

Ok so going to sum up some little things Ive noticed reading the codex that dont seem to be mentioned much but have some big implications.

For orders, as many officers as you want can issue the same order, so for example if you had a castellan and 3 platoon command squads, all could issue Take Aim!. However, no officer can give the same order more than once. So the lord solar or creed, who can give 3 orders a turn, cannot issue the same order more than once in a turn. So for example, Creed couldnt give three seperate orders of Take Aim! Creed would issue Take Aim to one unit, and the other two would need a different order like first rank fire or take cover.

Second, the ogryn bodyguards can attach to any nonnamed officer. Not just platoon squads. If you have a Castellan running around, an ogryn bodyguard is a good idea. 6 extra wounds at T5 with -1 damage and a 2+ armor save will keep your warlord alive a lot longer and you can give the bodyguard a ripper gun/shield combo so he can shoot and not have to go into melee. Yes bodyguards cost as much as the character but they make them far more survivable, especially versus targeted pysker abilities and sniper weapons. An additional fun thing for them and any ripper gun armed ogryn, they can fire them in melee like a pistol. Also, if Im reading this right Commissars may be able to take one as well, but not so sure about that one. Gotta reread keywords

Thirdly, tank officers order to 12". Not really surprising but sometime important to remember, theyre not limited to 6" like most officers


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On an unrelated note, I think several regiment abilities are strong, they just need to be leaned into. As far as I can tell, theres no way to mix "regiments" in the army, so for example you cant have a batallion with Born Soldiers and a batallion with Monster Hunters. Going off this I think youll see a lot of incentive to run born soldiers for a mixed army, but specialized armor or infantry regiments will be better served by other regiment abilities.

Also, Monster Hunters on an all infantry army could be pretty nuts. Not sure its strictly competitive but you could see some crazy moments where ranks of infantry FRFSRF into a horde of T6 and T7 big models and are wounding them on 5's. I would suspect this is why GW made it a trait that takes up both slots. If we still had conscripts it could be really crazy but as it sits I think its just a fun way to mess with an ork speedfreak list or a nidzilla style list.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
So for example, Creed couldnt give three seperate orders of Take Aim! Creed would issue Take Aim to one unit, and the other two would need a different order like first rank fire or take cover.

Fortunately there's a solution there. You can issue multiple orders to a single unit, you just replace the previous one each time. Issue placeholder orders to two units to activate the Creed buff, then issue take aim to a third unit and AoE it back onto the other two. End result: three units with take aim and +1 strength.

Also, Monster Hunters on an all infantry army could be pretty nuts. Not sure its strictly competitive but you could see some crazy moments where ranks of infantry FRFSRF into a horde of T6 and T7 big models and are wounding them on 5's. I would suspect this is why GW made it a trait that takes up both slots. If we still had conscripts it could be really crazy but as it sits I think its just a fun way to mess with an ork speedfreak list or a nidzilla style list.

Sadly not, it's just a case of GW failing at math again.

Born Soldiers: 6 shots, 3 hits with one 6, one auto-wound and 0.33 normal wounds for a total of 1.33 per six shots.

Monster Hunters: 6 shots, 3 hits, 1 wound.

Born Soldiers wins here and also gives you other benefits.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
So for example, Creed couldnt give three seperate orders of Take Aim! Creed would issue Take Aim to one unit, and the other two would need a different order like first rank fire or take cover.

Fortunately there's a solution there. You can issue multiple orders to a single unit, you just replace the previous one each time. Issue placeholder orders to two units to activate the Creed buff, then issue take aim to a third unit and AoE it back onto the other two. End result: three units with take aim and +1 strength.

I think yohre technically right but I see that getting FAQ'd if it turns out to be a thing you can do. Overriding Creeds order would override her +1 S I would think, youre quite literally overriding her order

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
So for example, Creed couldnt give three seperate orders of Take Aim! Creed would issue Take Aim to one unit, and the other two would need a different order like first rank fire or take cover.

Fortunately there's a solution there. You can issue multiple orders to a single unit, you just replace the previous one each time. Issue placeholder orders to two units to activate the Creed buff, then issue take aim to a third unit and AoE it back onto the other two. End result: three units with take aim and +1 strength.

I think yohre technically right but I see that getting FAQ'd if it turns out to be a thing you can do. Overriding Creeds order would override her +1 S I would think, youre quite literally overriding her order

RAW it clearly works. The +1 strength is activated by issuing the order, once the triggering event happens it is active for the duration. If it was "the unit gets +1 strength as long as the order is active" or similar overriding it would cancel the bonus but that's not the way it's structured.

Got a chance to play the new codex over the weekend. It was with borrowed models, so not a well optimized list and no rough riders or sentinels, but some first impressions:

* Armored Superiority was a game winner. An empty Chimera locked in melee with one wound left continuing to hold an objective against enemy models is incredibly powerful, and LRBTs becoming strong scoring units lets you shift more points into the big guns and less into cannon fodder. Born Soldiers is the easiest doctrine to understand and apply to any random army but IMO Armored Superiority is my default pick.

* Mechanized Infantry seems ok-ish. I didn't need to disembark for the extra movement distance to claim objectives, so staying in the Chimera until it dies and then disembarking onto the objective behind it was a better plan. But I can see how in other games this wouldn't be the case and you'd get a lot of value here. IMO the real question is whether you commit a full doctrine slot to it or take it as the bonus doctrine on a Kasrkin squad, and that probably comes down to if you're willing to commit a mechanized HQ to give them orders and need to allow multiple units to disembark simultaneously.

* LRBTs are god-tier. The relic battle cannon is an auto-take, even without the buffed strength and AP just having D3+6 shots instead of D6+3 is huge. My vanquishers easily earned their pay and simply delete stuff as long as they have a decent target. Executioners were pretty good. I did fall short on range by a few inches on turn 1 and waste some shots where a battle cannon or vanquisher would have been in range, but AP -4 really helps get damage through in an AoC world. Mortal wounds were no problem since tank orders are easy to get. And with the turret rule screening is much less important, even if you get locked in combat you're still putting BS 4+ shots into a different unit.

* Artillery underwhelmed. We played under the assumption that the exemption from the indirect fire penalty won't be staying and my Basilisk only ended up shooting at stuff I could have drawn LOS to with an advancing LRBT. I had to move it into LOS to get effective shots, and at that point why not take a superior LRBT? Indirect fire may be a useful tool to have in small quantities but if we lose that exemption don't invest in it.

* FW units suck. Underwhelming base stats, no synergy with the rest of the codex, and no real reason to take them. Sad to see the big centerpiece models go but until we get another IA book keep them on the display shelf and take more LRBTs.

The tactic I'm looking forward to testing is running the recon expert regiment trait and the Laurels of Command relic on an officer, then use the pregame infantry move to set up screening units and order them to take cover during my opponents turn if I get turn 2. Another thought is to give the officer the warlord trait that gives one of the other command abilities to give them commissar orders. Then I can alternatively use LoC to mess with any turn 1 deep strike, although at that point it's probably costing me more than its work heh. I don't have the codex yet (bought it off ebay and am waiting for it to arrive), so I might be misunderstanding how things work since I'm just going off what the reviews said at the moment.

I can also say that in the game I played using the leaks, the rogal dorn w/ the oppressor cannon slaps (even if I did royally screw up and lose horribly...I think I significantly underestimated the amount of damage I could have done with my 3 remaining rough riders, so I didn't use them effectively). Is it worth the points cost? I think that depends on the size of the match. At 1250pts, it seemed to be just barely worth worth the cost. I expect at 2k points, it'll be well worth the cost.

Has there been any explanation for why Infantry squads are limited to 10 now? I really don’t understand it, was hoping a rules person had discussed it somewhere.

Is someone trying to find a use for the scions? Kinda seem really bad now that karskins are a thing. I was considering maybe take a basic unit, but for that cost even the ratlings seem more appealing

caladancid wrote:
Has there been any explanation for why Infantry squads are limited to 10 now? I really don’t understand it, was hoping a rules person had discussed it somewhere.

GW is moving away from horde armies to elite armies.

caladancid wrote:
Has there been any explanation for why Infantry squads are limited to 10 now? I really don’t understand it, was hoping a rules person had discussed it somewhere.

Haven't infantry squads always been limited to 10 guys? With the optional HWT counting as 2? I know there was a stratagem to combine 2 squads into 1 larger squad but that was the only way outside of Conscripts to get large blobs.

There was an edition where you could take bigger squads I think? That was a long time ago.

Currently building Field Ordnance Batteries, waiting for the Rogal Dorn tank to come out.

I did not know the Rogue Trader edition, but from second edition forward, the troop infantry squad has always been 10 dudes (with the exception of one incomplete infantry squad you could field with 4th edition codex). There has been some workaround about this cap, with 5th and 7th edition codexes, when you could regroup squads inside a platoon to form a combined squad. But it was far from mandatory, and the structure was relatively rigid even then. You could form 20, 30 , 40 or 50 dudes combined squads during deployment, but nothing in between.

A more free structure about guard infantry came with conscripts, which had no options except for their numbers. Conscripts are like a sidenote on the history of imperial guard troops, and now they are completely gone. The move away from horde lists has condemned them anyway.

But will we continue to see brigade Astra Militarum army lists with this 9th edition codex ? I don't know, the 65 points squad is not the cheap value of 40 points we had through 8th edition. We were pretty much the sole codex fielding brigades. I'm courious to see the first competitive V9 Astra Militarum lists.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
But will we continue to see brigade Astra Militarum army lists with this 9th edition codex ? I don't know, the 65 points squad is not the cheap value of 40 points we had through 8th edition. We were pretty much the sole codex fielding brigades. I'm courious to see the first competitive V9 Astra Militarum lists.

I wouldn't be surprised if we still see them. Not for the extra troops slots, but because taking more basic troops (which are still decent) opens up a bunch more non-troops slots. With the loss of most vehicle squadrons getting those extra slots has a lot more value and ~200 points in troops is a reasonable price for getting them.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
I did not know the Rogue Trader edition

They were 10 dudes in RT too. They were also called 'Tactical Squad' (really), and they were 200(!) points (SM Tacticals were 250 for 10) with crazy weapon options like conversion beamers and D-cannons. They could also take horses. Crazy fun old times.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
I did not know the Rogue Trader edition, but from second edition forward, the troop infantry squad has always been 10 dudes (with the exception of one incomplete infantry squad you could field with 4th edition codex). There has been some workaround about this cap, with 5th and 7th edition codexes, when you could regroup squads inside a platoon to form a combined squad. But it was far from mandatory, and the structure was relatively rigid even then. You could form 20, 30 , 40 or 50 dudes combined squads during deployment, but nothing in between.

A more free structure about guard infantry came with conscripts, which had no options except for their numbers. Conscripts are like a sidenote on the history of imperial guard troops, and now they are completely gone. The move away from horde lists has condemned them anyway.

But will we continue to see brigade Astra Militarum army lists with this 9th edition codex ? I don't know, the 65 points squad is not the cheap value of 40 points we had through 8th edition. We were pretty much the sole codex fielding brigades. I'm courious to see the first competitive V9 Astra Militarum lists.

Yes I wasn't really clear- the platoon management abilities were what I meant, not conscripts.

Deleted

Garrac wrote:
Is someone trying to find a use for the scions? Kinda seem really bad now that karskins are a thing. I was considering maybe take a basic unit, but for that cost even the ratlings seem more appealing

I think people forget that these guys have the core rule. This means Leontus can make them re-roll wound rolls just like the kasrkins except they get exploding sixes to hit! Keep the Relic nearby use the first rank second rank fire order you get exploding sixes using Leontus re-rolls so technically you should get a decent number of extra hits which means more opportunity for extra mortal wounds. Those warlord traits that their command squads get are decent extra ap or ignore cover we are talking ap 4 shots with orders and with re-rolls that is nothing to laugh at.

I believe kasrkins are better due to cadian keyword but people just completely overlooked scions.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Welcome to the Imperial Guard 9th edition tactics thread. Get up to speed with the 9th Ed FAQs for greater good (heresy), imperial armor, and the IG Codex.

Step 1 - Set up Imperial Guard.

Step 2 - Lose the Game.

= )

On a more serious note it seems like Guard are regularly at the bottom of the top tier lists whereas Harlequins, Nids and Sisters are regularly in first place. I understand with Sisters some OPness is acceptable as GW is trying to use them to get more women into a largely male dominated game so I can see the rationale. Though I should note people suffering Dwarfism are even less represented then women and they nerfed Votann before the bodies were even cold (j/k - btw Tyrion is the man!)

I just don't see nerfing guards as a good use of time and resources vs the other factions achieving 60-70 percent win rates.

In any case it seems mass artillery is out, even though GW's own commercial for the Guard release said " Artillery wins wars." ( Do they play test any of these products at all?)

Mass armor is in which is kind of cool. Tank charges are fun.

Cadians seem to be clearly the best.

Would be nice to see how a Spearhead Detachment of 9 tanks works out. Might be hard to stop unless the enemy Tailors their army specifically for Anti-Vees.

 CKO wrote:

Garrac wrote:
Is someone trying to find a use for the scions? Kinda seem really bad now that karskins are a thing. I was considering maybe take a basic unit, but for that cost even the ratlings seem more appealing

I think people forget that these guys have the core rule. This means Leontus can make them re-roll wound rolls just like the kasrkins except they get exploding sixes to hit! Keep the Relic nearby use the first rank second rank fire order you get exploding sixes using Leontus re-rolls so technically you should get a decent number of extra hits which means more opportunity for extra mortal wounds. Those warlord traits that their command squads get are decent extra ap or ignore cover we are talking ap 4 shots with orders and with re-rolls that is nothing to laugh at.

Kasrkin do this better. Born Soldiers means every 6 (5+ with the stratagem) to hit is a mortal wound. It's effective enough that you want to split your fire to get the maximum 6 wounds per turn into each of two different units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asenion wrote:
On a more serious note it seems like Guard are regularly at the bottom of the top tier lists whereas Harlequins, Nids and Sisters are regularly in first place.

With the old codex. The new codex is way more powerful and guard are likely to be up at the top again once it becomes legal for tournaments.

Would be nice to see how a Spearhead Detachment of 9 tanks works out. Might be hard to stop unless the enemy Tailors their army specifically for Anti-Vees.

LRBT-heavy lists will be very effective, but why waste half your CP on a spearhead detachment when you can fit 12 of them in a battalion detachment before running out of slots?

Asenion wrote:

In any case it seems mass artillery is out

Well, massed artillery was a coping mechanism for a dated codex. I didn't expect it to continue to be "the build" under the new codex. I actually think people are overreacting when they say it's terrible now. It's just that other things are now less terrible than before, so artillery seems less attractive relative to infantry and armor.

My box arrived today...but I'm not at home. Starting the 30 hour journey home in just under 11 hours. My son will have the troops primed for me when I get there.

Looking at the Goonhammer review, I'm pretty pleased. Seems like armor, infantry, or a mix are all viable options, with splashes of artillery and support from sentinels being reasonable choices.

I'm going to have to look at whether a superheavy is now a viable option. With a 5++ and ignores mortals on 5++, it comes down to points cost and context. Not buying that orders are necessary. But I'm thinking a superheavy, a Dorn with psycher, and a (HQ) Gatekeeper is a beefy start. Maybe Creed with 2 Nebelwerfer, 2 bombasts, and 2 squads of autocannons (at S8!) might be really, really good. Fill in the rest with Cadian troops, including a squad or two of Kasrkin. But that's based on reading Goonhammer, I'll probably change my mind when I read the actual codex.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 CKO wrote:

Garrac wrote:
Is someone trying to find a use for the scions? Kinda seem really bad now that karskins are a thing. I was considering maybe take a basic unit, but for that cost even the ratlings seem more appealing

I think people forget that these guys have the core rule. This means Leontus can make them re-roll wound rolls just like the kasrkins except they get exploding sixes to hit! Keep the Relic nearby use the first rank second rank fire order you get exploding sixes using Leontus re-rolls so technically you should get a decent number of extra hits which means more opportunity for extra mortal wounds. Those warlord traits that their command squads get are decent extra ap or ignore cover we are talking ap 4 shots with orders and with re-rolls that is nothing to laugh at.

Kasrkin do this better. Born Soldiers means every 6 (5+ with the stratagem) to hit is a mortal wound. It's effective enough that you want to split your fire to get the maximum 6 wounds per turn into each of two different units.


5attalion detachment before running out of slots?

What if you are not playing born soldiers? I do not think born soldiers are a must-take but then again I am unorthodox. The combo is effective but you are using 2 command points.

I think born soldiers is the best all around. I honestly so no reason to take anything else especially now that we know the non-LOS exception is not coming back. The only other doctrine worth anything is going for armored superiority with whatever else you prefer (probably mechanized infantry)

 CKO wrote:

What if you are not playing born soldiers? I do not think born soldiers are a must-take but then again I am unorthodox. The combo is effective but you are using 2 command points.

Then the mortal wound bomb is much less effective and probably not worth it.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 CKO wrote:

What if you are not playing born soldiers? I do not think born soldiers are a must-take but then again I am unorthodox. The combo is effective but you are using 2 command points.

Then the mortal wound bomb is much less effective and probably not worth it.

I was thinking about all the ways to use the unit and not just the mortal wound bomb because they cannot do it properly without the 5+ stratagem anyways. How often will the kasrkin unit be in a position to unleash this mortal wound bomb and it be a devastating blow to 2 units? I believe in the ability to kill one unit if all shots are dedicated to it, but 12 and 10 shots at separate units isn't enough even with the mortal wounds.(Although the amount of damage the combo does is really good for 100 points unit and 2 command points)

I am not dissing the kasrkin I like them and they are easily top 3 unit in our codex but the illusion that they are so much better than scions is not true.

On the regiment front, Born Soldiers is the easy all around choice. I dont think its the end all be all, but youre never going to regret taking it I think. But I think we will see specific builds and loadouts where other regiment traits make more sense. Not all the time, but if IG starts taking top tables I suspect we'll see some interesting regiment combos playing toward very specific builds, like the one that makes all tanks scoring or things like ignoring cover within 18".

Yes Born Soldiers is a really good offensive boost, but some of the other regiment traits lend themselves to interesting tactics and abilities you dont see in many codexes. Abilities like disembark aftermovement, pregame move for all your infantry, and armywide ignore cover are very powerful in the right list or meta.

Gonna try the new codex tomorrow, against an unknown opponent (might be sisters, marines, nids or even nurgle daemons), and this is what I've come up with;

-HQ-

*Tank Commander /w 1x Heavy Bolter, Armoured Tracks, R: Gatekeeper, WT: Lead from the Front
*Castellan /w Powersword, Boltpistol + Ogryn Bodyguard /w Bruteshield, Maul
*Cadian Command Squad /w Plasmagun + Astropath

-Troops-

*Infantrysquad /w Plasmagun, Lascannon, Vox, Boltgun
*Infantrysquad /w Plasmagun, Lascannon, Vox, Boltgun
*Shock Troops /w 2x Plasmaguns, Autogun
*Shock Troops /w 2x Plasmaguns, Autogun
*Shock Troops /w 2x Plasmaguns, Autogun
*Shock Troops /w 2x Plasmaguns, Autogun

-Elites-

*10x Kasrkin /w 2x Volley Guns, 2x Plasmaguns, Mechanized Infantry + Chimera /w Multi-laser, Heavy Bolter
*6x Ogryns
*1x Enginseer
*1x Commissar

-Fast Attack-

*5x Rough Riders /w Goadlance
*1x Scout Sentinel /w Lascannon

-Heavy Support-

*Rogal Dorn /w Oppressor Cannon, 2x Heavy Bolters, Armoured Tracks, TA: Knight of Piety
*Leman Russ Vanquisher /w 3x Heavy Bolters, Armoured Tracks
*Leman Russ Executioner /w 3x Heavy Bolters, Armoured Tracks

2000 pts on the nose.

Maybe a bit plasma-heavy but it still seems like the most solid allrounder.

- Armoured and Mechanised
- Armoured and Swift
- Armoured and Sharphooters

Are all excellent combinations too. Armoured is just a fantastic doctrine if you want to dominate primaries and deny your opponents.

Born soldiers will always be useful, I think you can make armies based around other choices but it'll require careful planning to make it useful when they dont get used as much. Especially when you factor in the kasrkin free trait and the tank paid trait you can insert into a born soldiers list to better effect.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Gonna try the new codex tomorrow, against an unknown opponent (might be sisters, marines, nids or even nurgle daemons), and this is what I've come up with;

Give the teleport relic to the Kasrkin. That will let you drop their Chimera, give them the ignore cover doctrine, and free up some points for another unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:
- Armoured and Mechanised
- Armoured and Swift
- Armoured and Sharphooters

Are all excellent combinations too. Armoured is just a fantastic doctrine if you want to dominate primaries and deny your opponents.

Yep. IMO Born Soldiers is getting all the early hype because it's so easy to quantify the dice math advantage but in the long run, especially if the Kasrkin bomb gets nerfed, Armored Superiority lists are going to be stronger. And I wouldn't be surprised if infantry lists also settle on some combination of custom doctrines once people figure out how to use them effectively.

I am starting with armored superiority and swift as the wind and sentinel spam. It will take some time to chew threw 14 t 6 wounds and that unit will only cost around 100 points. If the opponent decides to dedicate serious gunfire at the sentinel then my other threats are left alone. In my limited games, I have played or watched 2 inches is a lot especially combined with the orders which can give you another 2 inches, used with the stratagem you can literally have sentinels anywhere on the table and make sure to position them correctly to give them objective secured.

Hey guys,

I'm thinking of doing an Armoured Company. I don't know if it's a viable army but I very much like the idea!

I have a Shadowsword that's mostly assembled, and on sprue I have a Baneblade, four standard LRBTs and LR with the demolisher options. I also have two DKOK squads that I was thinking of using as regular squads.

Fully assembled I have two LRBTs and a Hellhound.

However I have little experience with the game, I don't know how I should equip the tanks, can anyone kindly give me some advice? Thanks!

Leman Russ spam is definitely viable.
- They basically get Montka if you give them Full Throttle. Allowing them to move 18 inches and still shoot.
- If you have Armoured as your trait they all count as 5 models. Can get Obsec if you order them too.
- Can get max blast against units with 6-10 models with an order.
- If you have nothing better to order them with you can just give them RR1 to Hit.

That's just orders and half of your regiment trait options. I could see 9 Russes and 2 Tank Commanders being fairly viable. That's like 1800 points from the top of my head. Maybe take slightly less tanks for some infantry to hide and do secondaries.

 Destrado wrote:
However I have little experience with the game, I don't know how I should equip the tanks, can anyone kindly give me some advice? Thanks!

The LoWs are bad because of the core rules but LRBT spam looks like a very strong army. Your first LRBT should always be a tank commander with the Gatekeeper relic, it's by far the strongest option. After that vanquishers and executioners are the best options, with the ratio depending on your local meta and the rest of your list. As a general starting point you probably want a 2:1 ratio of executioners to vanquishers. Battle cannons are plasma for cowards who are afraid of dying and their range is mostly redundant on typical 9th edition tables, while demolishers and punishers have some valid targets but don't have an advantage often enough to be worth taking. Eradicators and exterminators are just plain bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:
That's just orders and half of your regiment trait options. I could see 9 Russes and 3 Tank Commanders being fairly viable. That's like 1900 points from the top of my head. Maybe take slightly less tanks for some infantry to hide and do secondaries.

I wouldn't take a list this skewed. Spending half your starting CP on a detachment is way too high a price to pay, just take 6-8 LRBTs and some infantry to fit everything into a battalion and pick up some screening and secondary fodder.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

I wouldn't take a list this skewed. Spending half your starting CP on a detachment is way too high a price to pay, just take 6-8 LRBTs and some infantry to fit everything into a battalion and pick up some screening and secondary fodder.

You don't need to pay any CP. You can quite easily fit 11 Russes into a Battalion, there's no point to even use a Spearhead anymore.

- 2 TC
- 3 Infantry Squads
- 9 LRBT

That's 1920 points. Then you can either use those 80 points for some more infantry, or just start giving everything sponsons. 80 points will get you 16 heavy bolters or heavy flamers.

Jarms48 wrote:
You can quite easily fit 11 Russes into a Battalion, there's no point to even use a Spearhead anymore.

And the person I quoted said 12, not 11.

TC - 165x3 = 495
LRBT - 155x9 = 1395

Total: 1890 points. The cheapest possible 3x troops option is 65x3 = 195 points, which would put you at 2085 points for a minimum battalion. And that's without taking any upgrades at all on the LRBTs. No sponsons, no tank aces.

Although I did get one thing wrong, you'd be spending more than half your starting CP because you'd have to take your third TC in an auxiliary detachment.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

Jarms48 wrote:
You can quite easily fit 11 Russes into a Battalion, there's no point to even use a Spearhead anymore.

And the person I quoted said 12, not 11.

TC - 165x3 = 495
LRBT - 150x9 = 1395

Total: 1890 points. The cheapest possible 3x troops option is 65x3 = 195 points, which would put you at 2085 points for a minimum battalion. And that's without taking any upgrades at all on the LRBTs. No sponsons, no tank aces.

Although I did get one thing wrong, you'd be spending more than half your starting CP because you'd have to take your third TC in an auxiliary detachment.

You can fit three TC in a battalion detachment, and a LRBT is 155.

 p5freak wrote:
You can fit three TC in a battalion detachment, and a LRBT is 155.

But you can't you take a battalion with 3x TCs and 9x LRBTs in a standard 2000 point game, and the original post I was responding to was "I could see 9 Russes and 3 Tank Commanders being fairly viable". The only way to take that combination of units in a standard game is a spearhead + auxiliary support detachment.

As for the point cost, yes, it is 155 points. 150 is a typo but you'll notice that the final point cost is correct for nine of them at 155 points each.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
The only way to take that combination of units in a standard game is a spearhead + auxiliary support detachment.

Yeah, you could do this but who would?

Jarms48 wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
The only way to take that combination of units in a standard game is a spearhead + auxiliary support detachment.

Yeah, you could do this but who would?

You probably, since you're the one who said it would be viable:

Jarms48 wrote:
I could see 9 Russes and 3 Tank Commanders being fairly viable.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

And the person I quoted said 12, not 11.

Yeah, that was me. You quoted me before I made the edit. I was going off the top of my head on points, then double checked and updated it.

Do not do this, its extremely impolite and against the rules - ingtær.

What do you think is going to be more durable and points efficient, 2 Infantry Squads/Cadian Shock Troops, or 1 and a Chimera?

Basically, if transports are bad this edition, is that still carrying over to the new Guard Codex?

Arcanis161 wrote:
What do you think is going to be more durable and points efficient, 2 Infantry Squads/Cadian Shock Troops, or 1 and a Chimera?

Basically, if transports are bad this edition, is that still carrying over to the new Guard Codex?

1 squad and a chimera will be more durable (especially if you bring more vehicles for target saturation), but 2 squads will deal more damage.

Shock Troops, especially when ordered, can deal a surprising amount of damage.

Two line infantry squads will provide better board control, will get though ruins easily and are not specially slow. But a few embarked squads (Cadian or Kasrkin) may have some use. I think having a sprinkling of them may add resilience and tactical flexibility, even if you don't use the mechanised regimental trait. Take for example the commissar, which have orders that you may find handy, like "get back to the fight". Having the commissar hidden inside a Chimera would give you the possibility of benefitting his order in a way larger area than if he was on foot in the command phase.

All of this arguing by undiscipline Commanders is shameful! If we are going to talk about Russ spam lets talk about how a competitive Tyranid list will try to take out our Russes. This question is not directed towards the Russ spam list idea but in general I would like to know how Tyranids deal with our vehicles in particular Russes.

The more I look at it, the less appealing Bullgryns with mauls are to me in this book.
I'd probably take Ogryns or even Bullgryns with Gauntlets over them now...

Bullgryns /w Mauls; 35 pts (+5)
Gained:
-1 dmg taken.
(Maul got nerfed to +1S so they remain S7.)

Meanwhile;
Bullgryns /w Gauntlets: 30 pts (same)
Gained:
-1 dmg taken.
+1 Strength.
+6" range on the Gauntlet.
+1 AP on the Gauntlet.

Ogryns: 30 pts (+5)
Gained:
-1 dmg taken.
+1 Strength.
+2 AP on Ripper.
+1 Damage on Ripper.
Point-Blank-Barrage.

If you want Bullgryns over Ogryns for either that 2+ or 4++, then Gauntlets feels like a much better (and slightly cheaper) choice right now. 6D6 S4 AP1 shots at 18" is nothing to scoff at.
Feels like the Maul should've remained +2 Str so they where S8 at least and/or a free sidegrade instead of costing 5 points, given how buffed the Gauntlet-version of Bullgryns got.

Put them behind a Aegis Defense Line and they'll be pretty hard to shift, and 18" range means they can still do stuff.

 CKO wrote:
All of this arguing by undiscipline Commanders is shameful! If we are going to talk about Russ spam lets talk about how a competitive Tyranid list will try to take out our Russes. This question is not directed towards the Russ spam list idea but in general I would like to know how Tyranids deal with our vehicles in particular Russes.

We can fire our Turrets out of combat. So even if every single Russ in a Russ spam list gets into combat, you just need to back 1-2 out of combat and the rest can blam the now exposed Tyranid units.

Gentlemen, no fighting in the war room!

Thank you all for your feedback.

I probably won't get that many LRBT (well... I did go from 1 to 3 to 8 pretty darn fast so who knows, just a few more).

But the general consensus, seems to be no sponsons, or HB/HF at that.

Anyway let's see if I can get them on the table sometime soon

Could someone with the limited edition codex explain how the options of the regular infantry squad work ? I already know that the heavy weapon and special weapon are free. A bit of a shame for heavy bolter and grenade launcher being on the same level than more powerful options, but hey, this is GW. What about the rest ? Are there any losses from the 8th edition book ? Which options are still available and at what cost ?

This summer, with all the upgrades made free, I dusted off my vox casters and 3 converted sergeants with power axes from 7th edition era (count as power swords), then had some fun. But I would like to know the upcoming situation before committing to any other conversion.

What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

Stormhammer I could probably proxy since it's absolute crap now.

Infantry squads have the same options as before. Basically the only stuff you need to pay for are plasma pistols and power swords. So 65 base, +5 for a power sword and + for plasma pistol. Thankfully none of the old squad loadouts were invalidated.

 Valkyrie wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

Stormhammer I could probably proxy since it's absolute crap now.

Still trash because of the 9th edition core rules. You still die to one-way line of sight, you still can't reliably move out of your deployment zone on tables with enough terrain for 9th, and you still have to choose between paying all of your starting CP (and therefore getting no relics or WLTs) to take three of them or paying no CP but not getting your doctrine buffs.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

Stormhammer I could probably proxy since it's absolute crap now.

Still trash because of the 9th edition core rules. You still die to one-way line of sight, you still can't reliably move out of your deployment zone on tables with enough terrain for 9th, and you still have to choose between paying all of your starting CP (and therefore getting no relics or WLTs) to take three of them or paying no CP but not getting your doctrine buffs.

Ok let's assume I'm not a WAAC and still want to play one because sod it, big tanks are fun. Which variants are people favouring?

 Valkyrie wrote:
Ok let's assume I'm not a WAAC and still want to play one because sod it, big tanks are fun. Which variants are people favouring?

Banesword is probably the least-terrible since it's the cheapest option and has a decent gun. You'll still need your opponents to deliberately tone down their lists to go easy on you and you'll definitely need to play on terrain layouts specifically designed to allow you to use it, but take the Banesword and Lord Solar to buff it and you at least have some reasonably efficient dice math. Though TBH once you're talking about that level of rejecting list optimization and asking people to go easy on you just take whichever one you think looks cool, on-table performance has been thrown out entirely at that point.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Banesword is probably the least-terrible since it's the cheapest option and has a decent gun. You'll still need your opponents to deliberately tone down their lists to go easy on you and you'll definitely need to play on terrain layouts specifically designed to allow you to use it, but take the Banesword and Lord Solar to buff it and you at least have some reasonably efficient dice math. Though TBH once you're talking about that level of rejecting list optimization and asking people to go easy on you just take whichever one you think looks cool, on-table performance has been thrown out entirely at that point.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Still trash because of the 9th edition core rules. You still die to one-way line of sight, you still can't reliably move out of your deployment zone on tables with enough terrain for 9th, and you still have to choose between paying all of your starting CP (and therefore getting no relics or WLTs) to take three of them or paying no CP but not getting your doctrine buffs.

Are you purposefully trashing units? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not looking hard enough or perhaps you don't have the codex and are using only rumors. When I get back from the gym I will defend the humble infantry squad and I will gladly defend our super heavy variants.

 CKO wrote:
Are you purposefully trashing units? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not looking hard enough or perhaps you don't have the codex and are using only rumors. When I get back from the gym I will defend the humble infantry squad and I will gladly defend our super heavy variants.

I have the codex right here and yes, I am trashing units because they are bad. The core rules of 9th are cripplingly harsh on titanic units and virtually all of them are terrible. It doesn't matter how great a unit's stat line is if it can't move out of your deployment zone and gets shot to death by units it can't see to return fire against.

And I have no idea why you're talking about defending infantry squads. What do you need to defend them from? They're a fine unit and their only real problem is that the plasma/melta Cadian squad is often a better choice. But even then sometimes you want a lascannon over a melta gun.

The problem with Baneblades is that 3 Russes (or 1 Leman Russ and 1 Dorn) will outperform them for (nearly) the same pts-cost - but if you're willing to look past this then most of the Banebladevariants are "fine", just stay away from the Hellhammer.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Are you purposefully trashing units? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not looking hard enough or perhaps you don't have the codex and are using only rumors. When I get back from the gym I will defend the humble infantry squad and I will gladly defend our super heavy variants.

I have the codex right here and yes, I am trashing units because they are bad. The core rules of 9th are cripplingly harsh on titanic units and virtually all of them are terrible. It doesn't matter how great a unit's stat line is if it can't move out of your deployment zone and gets shot to death by units it can't see to return fire against.

I agree with you on the mobility part, and I think you should only use your titanic if it's the player placing terrain. The profiles on those weapons are nice and you can get up to 30 heavy bolter shots. I think it is easily in the same league as an Imperial Knight. Will I use it in a tournament no but, I can see someone taking one and giving it a tank ace for a 5++ and performing well with it.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
And I have no idea why you're talking about defending infantry squads. What do you need to defend them from? They're a fine unit and their only real problem is that the plasma/melta Cadian squad is often a better choice. But even then sometimes you want a lascannon over a melta gun.

They are not bad because they can do all the things that win us our games, such as holding objectives, being in a different table quarter, being within 24 inches of an officer with a vox. Never mind you change your mind they are a fine unit and I agree cadian squads are better due to trans-human stratagem.

 CKO wrote:
I agree with you on the mobility part, and I think you should only use your titanic if it's the player placing terrain. The profiles on those weapons are nice and you can get up to 30 heavy bolter shots. I think it is easily in the same league as an Imperial Knight. Will I use it in a tournament no but, I can see someone taking one and giving it a tank ace for a 5++ and performing well with it.

"Only use a LoW if you can place the terrain yourself and arrange a board layout that works in its favor" is why they are bad. On neutral terrain they struggle to even leave your deployment zone, you're entirely dependent on having player placed terrain to give yourself maneuvering room and your opponent not doing the obvious and placing their pieces in spots that block you. And you still have to deal with the one-way line of sight issue where every anti-tank gun on the table can shoot the LoW but it can't see them to shoot back.

And sure, someone could take one outside of a tournament context and win some games against other non-tournament lists but that's kind of my point. You wouldn't take it in a tournament list, you'd only use it in an environment where everyone is deliberately toning down their lists to a lower power level so people can use those not-good-enough-for-tournaments units. In any situation where you care about having the best tool for the job you're taking 500 points worth of LRBTs instead.

They are not bad because they can do all the things that win us our games, such as holding objectives, being in a different table quarter, being within 24 inches of an officer with a vox. Never mind you change your mind they are a fine unit and I agree cadian squads are better due to trans-human stratagem.

What are you talking about? I didn't change my mind on anything, I never said that infantry squads are bad. You're arguing against a straw man here.

The biggest issue with Baneblades are simply how large they are. On any kind of suggested terrain layout you only get two places in your deployment zone to put it, and they're basically stuck there for the entire game.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:. You wouldn't take it in a tournament list, you'd only use it in an environment where everyone is deliberately toning down their lists to a lower power level so people can use those not-good-enough-for-tournaments units.

That's already a big part of the game. It's called casual play.

I hope they keep AoC on the baneblade chassis in updated dataslate.. I mean it will still be bad but less so.

 Valkyrie wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:. You wouldn't take it in a tournament list, you'd only use it in an environment where everyone is deliberately toning down their lists to a lower power level so people can use those not-good-enough-for-tournaments units.

That's already a big part of the game. It's called casual play.

Sure, use a Baneblade in "casual" play. It's still an F-tier unit even if "casual" play for you involves using F-tier units and not caring about list optimization.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:. You wouldn't take it in a tournament list, you'd only use it in an environment where everyone is deliberately toning down their lists to a lower power level so people can use those not-good-enough-for-tournaments units.

That's already a big part of the game. It's called casual play.

Sure, use a Baneblade in "casual" play. It's still an F-tier unit even if "casual" play for you involves using F-tier units and not caring about list optimization.

Casual play is more about having fun. You should try it one day.

Isn't the point of this thread to discuss Imperial Guard tactics relative to competitive play?

 Valkyrie wrote:
Casual play is more about having fun. You should try it one day.

Competitive play is also about having fun.

And the question was about evaluating guard LoW options, not about what type of game you personally have the most fun with or your condescending attitude towards people who enjoy other types of games.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Isn't the point of this thread to discuss Imperial Guard tactics relative to competitive play?

Not necessarily, it's a "tactics"-thread in general for all forms of 9th Ed. Imperial Guard lists and playstyles, not just competitive ones.

If someone wants to field unit X and asks for the best way to field/use it, the response should be "use it like this" or "it's not that great, but it can work like this" - not "that unit is not competitive/crap, don't use it", unless said someone intends to use it for competitive play.

In regards to the current "super heavy"-discussion going on, if someone asks "I have these various Baneblade variants that I want to use for once, what are peoples thoughts?", then responding "they are trash, don't use them" really isn't helping anyone and is only lowering the quality of the thread.

 MinscS2 wrote:
In regards to the current "super heavy"-discussion going on, if someone asks "I have these various Baneblade variants that I want to use for once, what are peoples thoughts?", then responding "they are trash, don't use them" really isn't helping anyone and is only lowering the quality of the thread.

It absolutely is helping. Not every idea is a good idea and sometimes the best advice is "no, don't do that".

Unless the Baneblade chassis is something like 800+ points, it’s usable.
It might not be optimal, but it’s not useless.

I'm wondering if I'm going to have a similar problem trying to fit 6 100mm ordnance battery bases into my deployment zone.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Unless the Baneblade chassis is something like 800+ points, it’s usable.
It might not be optimal, but it’s not useless.

Define "usable"?

Usable, as in it is literally possible to put it on the table? Sure, it is a legal Warhammer 40k unit and can be taken in games. But so is everything else, so that's not saying much.

Usable, as in it will contribute to winning games and there is an argument for taking it as the best tool for a certain job? No. It's a major liability that is crippled by core rules designed deliberately to punish titanic units and push them out of normal games. It will never be better than its points in LRBTs and there is no strategic argument for it to ever see the table.

Usable, as in it's never the correct answer but won't be so egregiously wrong that your overall list will suffer significantly? No. At 500 points it's a significant percentage of your list spent on a very bad unit that will often be dead weight. Even in a relatively casual environment it hurts you badly and you really need your opponent to cooperate and help you make a LoW-friendly game.

If Baneblades are "usable" at all it's only because guard are the most recent codex and benefit enough from power creep that you can afford to take some extremely subpar choices and still win games because the rest of your army is so strong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ph34r wrote:
I'm wondering if I'm going to have a similar problem trying to fit 6 100mm ordnance battery bases into my deployment zone.

Probably. IMO it's a unit you want to take 0-1 of and it competes with Basilisks/Manticores and mortars for that same 0-1 slot. You probably want an indirect fire unit, you probably don't want more than one of them because of diminishing returns. It's especially true for the FOBs since they're so completely dependent on being hidden out of LOS, the artillery tanks at least have a vehicle stat line to survive a stray shot or two if you can't get them into a good hiding spot.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Isn't the point of this thread to discuss Imperial Guard tactics relative to competitive play?

So you think tactics is only relevant on one game mode?

Looooooooooooooool.

(as is by definuition tactics is relevant post-list building anyway. List building isn't tactics)

tneva82 wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Isn't the point of this thread to discuss Imperial Guard tactics relative to competitive play?

So you think tactics is only relevant on one game mode?

Yes, given the way people are talking about "casual" play as a game mode where you prioritize things other than winning the game. You can't have a meaningful discussion of tactics if you're starting from a premise that X is the choice that maximizes your chances of winning the game but you're going to do Y instead because you care more about story/aesthetics/whatever.

(as is by definuition tactics is relevant post-list building anyway. List building isn't tactics)

Protest all you like that it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "tactics" but in a 40k context when people talk about "tactics" they're including list building and list building is the majority of the discussion.

Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from WAAC syndrome player "either it is unit from meta list or its bad unit". ))) Surprise, Surprise it is not like that... Remember guy saying "it is irrelevant what your army is if you take Valkyrie instead of Vendetta, you already losing". Oh, sweet 5th edition...

No, Baneblade chassis isnt bad and wont lose you a game as someone would argue. Depends on type and role. Shadowsword is very specialized, but good at it. BB is solid weapon base. Etc. Only real drawback is with transport varianty as 9th ed tables are densely covered with terrain.

Is LR spam more effective? Definitely, just use all your Executioners, few Vanquishers and have fun. Well, if you have fun this way... But I can guarantee you that in even semicompetitive tournament you will have more fun with Baneblade chassis (and your opponent too) and still be competitive, but some people do not play to have fun

I would stay away from Ordnance spam, because IG will probably lose its dataslate upgrade, and you will spend a lot of time and money on something you actually do not want to spam. 4 plates are IMO good for cool effect and still make damage with orders. Im going for 2 right now.

Btw - after few first tournament, I expect nerfhammer to Kasrkin and LR, lets hope not crippling.

P. S. That Valkyrie worked better than Vendetta ?

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from WAAC syndrome player "either it is unit from meta list or its bad unit". )))

Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from CAAC syndrome player "if you talk honestly about unit evaluation or enjoy competitive play you're having fun the wrong way and you need to stop." )))

No, Baneblade chassis isnt bad and wont lose you a game as someone would argue.

Really? It won't cost you games to put a quarter of your points into a unit that can't leave your deployment zone and can be shot to death from anywhere on the table while it can't see anything to return fire? Maybe you can argue that a Baneblade is only D-tier instead of F-tier or that using F-tier units is "fun", but if you can't see how taking one can and will cost you games you're making a serious mistake in evaluating the unit.

(Or you're playing on tables with nowhere near enough terrain and creating a meta that excessively rewards alpha strike lists, but that's not something most people can rely on.)

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from WAAC syndrome player "either it is unit from meta list or its bad unit". )))

Funny, eight years here ane still DakkaDakka suffers from CAAC syndrome player "if you talk honestly about unit evaluation or enjoy competitive play you're having fun the wrong way and you need to stop." )))

No, Baneblade chassis isnt bad and wont lose you a game as someone would argue.

Really? It won't cost you games to put a quarter of your points into a unit that can't leave your deployment zone and can be shot to death from anywhere on the table while it can't see anything to return fire? Maybe you can argue that a Baneblade is only D-tier instead of F-tier or that using F-tier units is "fun", but if you can't see how taking one can and will cost you games you're making a serious mistake in evaluating the unit.

(Or you're playing on tables with nowhere near enough terrain and creating a meta that excessively rewards alpha strike lists, but that's not something most people can rely on.)

Have you ever thought that maybe I am the problem and I am not getting the most out of these units? If several other people are saying something do you dismiss what is called groupthink with your superior intellect?

Just here to say shadowsword was used competitive and placed 4th in a GT this week…

I am by no means saying it’s a very competitive unit but it’s by no means useless… it really does need AoC to stay imho for it to be remotely relevant.

 CKO wrote:

Have you ever thought that maybe I am the problem and I am not getting the most out of these units? If several other people are saying something do you dismiss what is called groupthink with your superior intellect?

Given that nobody is really addressing the terrain issues and the most popular response to me putting the LoW in F-tier is "WAAC IS BAD PLAY FOR FUN", no, I don't think I'm the problem here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Just here to say shadowsword was used competitive and placed 4th in a GT this week…

I am by no means saying it’s a very competitive unit but it’s by no means useless… it really does need AoC to stay imho for it to be remotely relevant.

I'd like to see the terrain layouts that were used. Flat D12 could be a decent stat line if you're playing in a very low-terrain environment but I don't think you're going to see that at many events.

(And AoC is not going to stay, so if the event was using the dataslate buffs it's not a very accurate representation of where we'll be long term.)

I love the way this is going into armchair player zone
It is About third Page of one theoryer guy opposing number of others, trying to look "I know it all" and throwing "This is F-Tier" in very lenghty response to player asking about his units. Not helping at all, just throwing around wise words about "just play LRBT" )

Right now it isnt even about tactics, but one ego unable to comprehend what OP wanted to discuss.

Pity he wasn around during Leafblower period, I know what would he preach ))

To OP with BB. I would stay away from transport versions, terrain wont let you deliver cargo where you want. Basic BB is very good shooting base that can work even as area denier. But depends on the rest of your army. Shadowsword is powerful, but if you already run like three Vanquishers, it is overkill. If not, that firepower against big units can be game deciding. Especially if you have tools to mop up doggies. BB chassis is still very durable, especially for the points (hello Repulsors, truly bottom tier units) and require a lot of attention. Just dont get sucked into *boom boom* game and grind those secondaries

On todays battlefields, with lots of LOS blockers, a model as huge as a baneblade is not very practical. Because of its size it cant hide, its defensive stats are weak, and it can hardly move. Smaller enemy units can hide behind LOS blockers, the baneblade wont see them. Killing a baneblade in one turn is not impossible. This is not armchair theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gungo wrote:
Just here to say shadowsword was used competitive and placed 4th in a GT this week…

I am by no means saying it’s a very competitive unit but it’s by no means useless… it really does need AoC to stay imho for it to be remotely relevant.

I doubt the shadowsword did any major work in that list.

 UlrikDecado wrote:
I love the way this is going into armchair player zone
It is About third Page of one theoryer guy opposing number of others, trying to look "I know it all" and throwing "This is F-Tier" in very lenghty response to player asking about his units. Not helping at all, just throwing around wise words about "just play LRBT" )

Right now it isnt even about tactics, but one ego unable to comprehend what OP wanted to discuss.

Pity he wasn around during Leafblower period, I know what would he preach ))

To OP with BB. I would stay away from transport versions, terrain wont let you deliver cargo where you want. Basic BB is very good shooting base that can work even as area denier. But depends on the rest of your army. Shadowsword is powerful, but if you already run like three Vanquishers, it is overkill. If not, that firepower against big units can be game deciding. Especially if you have tools to mop up doggies. BB chassis is still very durable, especially for the points (hello Repulsors, truly bottom tier units) and require a lot of attention. Just dont get sucked into *boom boom* game and grind those secondaries

Interesting, cheers for the ideas. Was also looking at the Stormsword. Seems to have a nice balance between number of shots and damage output so might try that along with the BB.

 UlrikDecado wrote:
It is About third Page of one theoryer guy opposing number of others, trying to look "I know it all" and throwing "This is F-Tier" in very lenghty response to player asking about his units.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Ten thousand people like you saying "TIER LISTS BAD DONT WAAC PLAY FOR FUN" are outweighed by one person explaining the issues with terrain and detachments that titanic units face in 9th. And none of you are addressing those issues at all.

If not, that firepower against big units can be game deciding.

If it can ever see a target. Why reveal a target for the Shadowsword when you can hide everything behind LOS blocking ruins and shoot it through one-way cover?

How dense are your tables?

I can see the movement issues, but unless you just say every terrain piece is obscuring, LoS isn't going to be a huge issue. An issue, sure, but not insurmountable.

 JNAProductions wrote:
How dense are your tables?

I can see the movement issues, but unless you just say every terrain piece is obscuring, LoS isn't going to be a huge issue. An issue, sure, but not insurmountable.

You have to have lots of terrain and have all of it be obscuring if you want to mitigate alpha strikes enough to have a game instead of just a roll to see who goes first. Look at GW's recommended tournament layouts, it's almost all ruins (obscuring) with maybe a couple pieces of forest (dense) which are almost as bad. And the gaps between those pieces are tiny. If a Baneblade with sponsons fits at all it's only by a narrow margin and only along a single line. So even if you theoretically have a spot where the LoW can get line of sight to a vital target it's questionable whether you can even get there. Meanwhile the units shooting at the LoW have no such problem. It can be seen from anywhere on the table and does not ever benefit from -1 to hit or +1 save.

Half related to this: I just skimmed over the new regiment traits as listed by Auspex tactics and stumbled on "Blitz Division"
=> half power level for reserves and can arrive anywhere on the battlefield as if it was battleround 3

Does this mean I could (potentially) drop a Baneblade chassis into the enemies deployment zone turn 2 after he potentially left enough space there in turn 1? (Given my superheavies count as regimental)
Regardless of the question if superheavies are F tier or not, I just try to understand this doctrine.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
Half related to this: I just skimmed over the new regiment traits as listed by Auspex tactics and stumbled on "Blitz Division"
=> half power level for reserves and can arrive anywhere on the battlefield as if it was battleround 3

Does this mean I could (potentially) drop a Baneblade chassis into the enemies deployment zone turn 2 after he potentially left enough space there in turn 1? (Given my superheavies count as regimental)
Regardless of the question if superheavies are F tier or not, I just try to understand this doctrine.

No. You have two problems here. First of all, units in SHADs do not get doctrines so you'll need to take a full superheavy detachment of 3x LoW. This means committing ~1500 points, giving up all relics and WLTs, and having crippled access to stratagems. But even if you're willing to pay this absurdly high price note the rules on setting up reserve units: they must arrive wholly within 6" and I believe the standard Baneblade model with sponsons has no dimension shorter than 6". Which means this rule now applies:

If a model is so large that it cannot physically be set up wholly within 6" of a battlefield edge (i.e. the smallest dimension of that model is greater than 6"), it must be set up so that it is touching your battlefield edge. During the turn in which such a model is set up on the battlefield, that model’s unit cannot do any of the following: make a Normal Move, Advance, Fall Back, Remain Stationary; attempt to manifest or deny psychic powers; make any attacks with ranged weapons; declare a charge; perform a Heroic Intervention; perform any actions or psychic actions.

So you can't set it up anywhere except in your own deployment zone and you can't do anything other than sit passively and take hits on the turn it arrives. IOW, there is no point to doing this vs. just setting it up normally at the start of the game.

my point is, that the Auspex tactics video lists "anywhere on the battlefield" which to me sounds a lot like the "6'' from a battlefield edge'' thingy does not apply.

also: just saw that the Superheavy ace "Steadfast leviathan" seems to be gone that allowed superheavies in a SHAD to get regimental keywords, what a pitty. But what if I give my Superheavy in a SHAD "Veteran Commander" and select "Blitz Brigade". That should be possible, right?

 Pyroalchi wrote:
my point is, that the Auspex tactics video lists "anywhere on the battlefield" which to me sounds a lot like the "6'' from a battlefield edge'' thingy does not apply.

Then the video is wrong (or may be an old video from the playtest leaks, where things might have worked differently). The only thing the doctrine changes is the turn-based restriction, counting turn 2 as turn 3 for purposes of location. The 6" limit still applies.

also: just saw that the Superheavy ace "Steadfast leviathan" seems to be gone that allowed superheavies in a SHAD to get regimental keywords, what a pitty. But what if I give my Superheavy in a SHAD "Veteran Commander" and select "Blitz Brigade". That should be possible, right?

Yes. Steadfast Leviathan is unfortunately gone. And Veteran Commandeer does not work. It gives the model an additional doctrine but because of the SHAD rule that it doesn't benefit from detachment abilities you have a model with 2-3 (depending on if you take Born Soldiers) doctrines, none of which have any effect on it because they are all detachment abilities.

OK, thanks for clearing that up

 Valkyrie wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

Stormhammer I could probably proxy since it's absolute crap now.

The D4 on the Banesword is somewhat interesting, especially while there isn't a Rogal Dorn model to buy and play with. The D12 on the Shadowsword is "cool" but you'll be sad when your opponent shows up with max W3 models. I think those two are the best, I don't like the transports, don't like a D3 main gun (already got plenty) and don't like the swingy D6+2.

The LRBT (and Kasrkin) are undercosted I think and will get nerfed at some point in the future to open up more datasheets (and sell some Rogals).

So taking more LRBTs will generally be better than taking superheavies. I think the RDBT sits in the middle between the two for now.

But, a single super heavy doesn't look like a massive liability in a reasonably "competitive" game between two people who aren't top tier amazing at the game. And you always have the chance they haven't got a great solution for basically a Knight screened out by the other possibly very good 1,500 points.

EightFoldPath wrote:
But, a single super heavy doesn't look like a massive liability in a reasonably "competitive" game between two people who aren't top tier amazing at the game. And you always have the chance they haven't got a great solution for basically a Knight screened out by the other possibly very good 1,500 points.

If you can't deal with 2-3 LRBT-equivalent tanks (which is what a Baneblade is) you're way past "reasonably competitive" and into playing either strict narrative games with forces decided by the story rather than on-table strategy or very low-skill players putting random units on the table with no ability to make a coherent TAC list. Any list that can't handle a Baneblade is going to struggle to win games at all.

And yeah, you can have a very strong 1500 points. But that's less "Baneblades are viable" and more "if you have the most recent codex you can afford to take some F-tier choices and still win because the rest of your army is overpowered". And you're not going to be screening much when the fact that the very tip of my antenna can see the very tip of your Baneblade's antenna means that the three ruins and a forest between our models magically cease to exist for my shooting but block your return fire entirely. If anything your screening is just going to get in the way of the Baneblade's movement and block it from getting into a position where it can even attempt to exchange fire.

Dude, no one is saying the baneblade's variants are better than 2 LRBT. We are saying they are not F-tier. 30 t9 wounds with a 2+ 5++ save are durable and, in most cases, because this thing is not towering over terrain like an Imperial Knight, if they can see you you can see them.

Please, remind us about terrain being an issue.

 CKO wrote:
Dude, no one is saying the baneblade's variants are better than 2 LRBT. We are saying they are not F-tier. 30 t9 wounds with a 2+ 5++ save are durable and, in most cases, because this thing is not towering over terrain like an Imperial Knight, if they can see you you can see them.

Please, remind us about terrain being an issue.

Then what tier would you put them in, if F-tier is not appropriate for a unit that should never be taken over the units that directly compete with it for its role and suffers from major issues with core rules designed to discourage the use of its class of unit in normal games?

And yes, T9/W30/2+/5++ (if you take the tank ace for the 5++) is a durable stat line. But it's less durable than the T9/W17/2+/5++ of a RDBT in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't have to "tower over terrain" for one-way line of sight to apply, all you need to be able to see is the very tip of a single antenna through the overlap of ruin windows, even if the only thing that can draw LOS to that antenna tip is the very tip of a single antenna on your own tank. And then suddenly you're comparing T9/W30/2+/5++ to T infinite/W infinite/0+/0++/0+++.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Dude, no one is saying the baneblade's variants are better than 2 LRBT. We are saying they are not F-tier. 30 t9 wounds with a 2+ 5++ save are durable and, in most cases, because this thing is not towering over terrain like an Imperial Knight, if they can see you you can see them.

Please, remind us about terrain being an issue.

Then what tier would you put them in, if F-tier is not appropriate for a unit that should never be taken over the units that directly compete with it for its role and suffers from major issues with core rules designed to discourage the use of its class of unit in normal games?

And yes, T9/W30/2+/5++ (if you take the tank ace for the 5++) is a durable stat line. But it's less durable than the T9/W17/2+/5++ of a RDBT in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't have to "tower over terrain" for one-way line of sight to apply, all you need to be able to see is the very tip of a single antenna through the overlap of ruin windows, even if the only thing that can draw LOS to that antenna tip is the very tip of a single antenna on your own tank. And then suddenly you're comparing T9/W30/2+/5++ to T infinite/W infinite/0+/0++/0+++.

Let's try an analogy.

Suppose GW came out, tomorrow, with a new unit for the Guard Dex. Call it a Leman Russer. It is, in every way shape and form, identical to a Leman Russ-but each Leman Russer is five points cheaper. That's the only difference-five points per model.
The Leman Russer is clearly a superior choice-saving five points isn't much, but it could add up to let you take some extra sponsons or whatever. Is the Leman Russ suddenly F-Tier, because a slightly better unit came out?

A Baneblade chassis is not the BEST choice-but not being the best doesn't make something garbage.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
And yes, T9/W30/2+/5++ (if you take the tank ace for the 5++) is a durable stat line. But it's less durable than the T9/W17/2+/5++ of a RDBT in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't have to "tower over terrain" for one-way line of sight to apply, all you need to be able to see is the very tip of a single antenna through the overlap of ruin windows, even if the only thing that can draw LOS to that antenna tip is the very tip of a single antenna on your own tank. And then suddenly you're comparing T9/W30/2+/5++ to T infinite/W infinite/0+/0++/0+++.

Those antennae are not as easy as you make it seem. Nonetheless, play smart and make sure it isn't exposed on turn 1. Unless the enemy exposes itself also.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Let's try an analogy.

Suppose GW came out, tomorrow, with a new unit for the Guard Dex. Call it a Leman Russer. It is, in every way shape and form, identical to a Leman Russ-but each Leman Russer is five points cheaper. That's the only difference-five points per model.
The Leman Russer is clearly a superior choice-saving five points isn't much, but it could add up to let you take some extra sponsons or whatever. Is the Leman Russ suddenly F-Tier, because a slightly better unit came out?

A Baneblade chassis is not the BEST choice-but not being the best doesn't make something garbage.

That's not really a comparable analogy. The gap between a LRBT and a cheapLRBT is very small. Yes, one is an auto-take over the other in this unrealistic scenario, but the fact that the gap is so tiny means that the tier gap is also small. If LRBTs are A-tier as-is then cheapLRBTs would take their place in A-tier and LRBTs would drop down to B-tier, maybe A- or B+ if you're breaking it down into finer steps. It's a power gap, but one that is only clearly identifiable because you've created the unrealistic scenario of having two units that are literally identical except for point cost. With real units that small a power gap would be too small to definitively identify and people would probably argue the merits of each.

The more accurate analogy would be if GW made the LRBT-but-cheaper cost 50 points less. That's an immense power gap, one that is clearly identifiable and will directly translate to differences in real-world win rates depending on which one you take. And in that situation yes, you would dump the old LRBT into F-tier because it's a completely redundant unit that nobody with any skill at evaluating units will ever want to take.

And you see that very clearly in the arguments here. With units that are in adjacent tiers you have genuine arguments about the merits of each. Some people still think the lower-tier unit is better, and most people acknowledge that it has advantages in some situations. But here we have none of that. The only argument in favor of the Baneblade is "it's not so bad that you'll auto-lose" or "DONT BE WAAC PLAY FOR FUN", with even the people who are defending it admitting that its points in LRBTs or RDBTs will be better at winning games. That's a textbook F-tier unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CKO wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
And yes, T9/W30/2+/5++ (if you take the tank ace for the 5++) is a durable stat line. But it's less durable than the T9/W17/2+/5++ of a RDBT in the vast majority of cases. It doesn't have to "tower over terrain" for one-way line of sight to apply, all you need to be able to see is the very tip of a single antenna through the overlap of ruin windows, even if the only thing that can draw LOS to that antenna tip is the very tip of a single antenna on your own tank. And then suddenly you're comparing T9/W30/2+/5++ to T infinite/W infinite/0+/0++/0+++.

Those antennae are not as easy as you make it seem. Nonetheless, play smart and make sure it isn't exposed on turn 1. Unless the enemy exposes itself also.

How do you "play smart" when the terrain on the table does not cover the entire model? There isn't some secret strategy that lets a Baneblade be obscured behind a ruin that has holes in the wall and doesn't block LOS without the obscuring trait applying.

And yes, they are in fact that easy to see. I can't remember a time when I've ever had trouble seeing a tank through even multiple pieces of terrain. If it doesn't have the obscuring trait the only thing blocking a shot is that some people feel it's "cheap" to use the actual LOS rules and you should voluntarily decline to shoot if you can't see a significant percentage of the model.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
How do you "play smart" when the terrain on the table does not cover the entire model? There isn't some secret strategy that lets a Baneblade be obscured behind a ruin that has holes in the wall and doesn't block LOS without the obscuring trait applying.

And yes, they are in fact that easy to see. I can't remember a time when I've ever had trouble seeing a tank through even multiple pieces of terrain. If it doesn't have the obscuring trait the only thing blocking a shot is that some people feel it's "cheap" to use the actual LOS rules and you should voluntarily decline to shoot if you can't see a significant percentage of the model.

Is there a lot of terrain or not? You are saying there is too much so the baneblade can't move but it is not enough to hide.

 CKO wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
How do you "play smart" when the terrain on the table does not cover the entire model? There isn't some secret strategy that lets a Baneblade be obscured behind a ruin that has holes in the wall and doesn't block LOS without the obscuring trait applying.

And yes, they are in fact that easy to see. I can't remember a time when I've ever had trouble seeing a tank through even multiple pieces of terrain. If it doesn't have the obscuring trait the only thing blocking a shot is that some people feel it's "cheap" to use the actual LOS rules and you should voluntarily decline to shoot if you can't see a significant percentage of the model.

Is there a lot of terrain or not? You are saying there is too much so the baneblade can't move but it is not enough to hide.

There's no contradiction here. A ruin blocks the Baneblade's movement but might as well not exist for blocking LOS. You don't benefit from the obscuring trait and if even the slightest bit of the model is visible through windows or other gaps then it can be shot as if the ruin wasn't there at all.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
If you can't deal with 2-3 LRBT-equivalent tanks (which is what a Baneblade is) you're way past "reasonably competitive" and into playing either strict narrative games with forces decided by the story rather than on-table strategy or very low-skill players putting random units on the table with no ability to make a coherent TAC list. Any list that can't handle a Baneblade is going to struggle to win games at all.

It isn't our fault you lack imagination.

My last 4-1 GT list will struggle with killing a Baneblade (and RDBTs and LRBTs). It was finely tuned in terms of being good into CK/IK because (a) they lacked screens and (b) it was good at killing T7 war dog bodies that would be screening. I'm currently debating my next GT list and I am thinking of just ignoring the LRBTs (and so also the Baneblades) and just trying to clear everything else from T3~7 in the first turn or two. I'd actually be taking out some S5 and skewing more into other areas.

I'm flicking through the factions and thinking of the lists I saw and there are quite a few that would have had a rough time against a Baneblade. A lot of the higher placing CSM lists will need a re-design, as D2 CSM melee looks awful into LRBTs/RDBTs/SHs.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Then what tier would you put them in, if F-tier is not appropriate for a unit that should never be taken over the units that directly compete with it for its role and suffers from major issues with core rules designed to discourage the use of its class of unit in normal games?

I think in your rush to be the edgiest edgelord who ever did edge, you might have missed the AoW tier list where Baneblades sat at the bottom of the middle tier, behind all the really strong choices, barely ahead of all the flawed choices that aren't worth taking.

The point is though, that even if all the players at a GT were taking the exact same army/list, then being realistic probably only 20% of the players would have a chance of winning. Ultimately for the bottom 80% it doesn't matter if they don't take the perfect optimised list. It might cost them a win on their final record. Those bottom 80% can take a SH and maybe doing so now will teach them something about the game without completely tanking them down to 0-5.

The original question also wasn't asking "should I buy a SH" it was asking "I already own them, which one looks the best". More reading comprehension required, less edging.

Because you would be right to discourage the purchase of SHs from a purely competitive play angle. But if someone already owns a SH then letting them get it on the table a time or two to learn the flaws for themselves is a very good wargaming experience.

EightFoldPath wrote:
My last 4-1 GT list will struggle with killing a Baneblade (and RDBTs and LRBTs). It was finely tuned in terms of being good into CK/IK because (a) they lacked screens and (b) it was good at killing T7 war dog bodies that would be screening. I'm currently debating my next GT list and I am thinking of just ignoring the LRBTs (and so also the Baneblades) and just trying to clear everything else from T3~7 in the first turn or two. I'd actually be taking out some S5 and skewing more into other areas.

Sounds like 4-1 had more to do with matchup luck than list quality. Planning to just take an auto-loss if you run into LRBT spam (or equivalents from other factions) isn't a viable competitive list. Any list that is earning those 4-1 and 5-0 records by list strength, not getting lucky and playing easy matchups, is going to have no problems handling a Baneblade because they're already planning to remove 2-3 LRBTs, 1-2 large knights, etc.

I'm flicking through the factions and thinking of the lists I saw and there are quite a few that would have had a rough time against a Baneblade. A lot of the higher placing CSM lists will need a re-design, as D2 CSM melee looks awful into LRBTs/RDBTs/SHs.

Sure, maybe that's the meta before guard are legal. But the meta will change and if guard are relevant in the meta people will be planning to be able to deal with the LRBTs. And if they can deal with the LRBTs they can also deal with a weaker version of LRBTs.

I think in your rush to be the edgiest edgelord who ever did edge, you might have missed the AoW tier list where Baneblades sat at the bottom of the middle tier, behind all the really strong choices, barely ahead of all the flawed choices that aren't worth taking.

Sorry, but remind me again who appointed AoW god of tier lists and decided that AoW's opinion is a substitute for CKO's opinion? I asked them, not AoW.

(And for the record, I saw their tier list video and I think they severely underestimated the terrain issues in favor of gawking at the raw stat lines. Same thing with the ADL, they ranked it way too high and completely ignored the fact that on most tables you won't be able to deploy it in a useful spot.)

The original question also wasn't asking "should I buy a SH" it was asking "I already own them, which one looks the best". More reading comprehension required, less edging.

More reading comprehension, less edging about ALL UNITS ARE VALID. This is the original question:

What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

"Sorry, they suck and you're going to be disappointed if you use them" is a valid answer to that question whether you like it or not.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

More reading comprehension, less edging about ALL UNITS ARE VALID. This is the original question:

What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

"Sorry, they suck and you're going to be disappointed if you use them" is a valid answer to that question whether you like it or not.

Thats your opinion and you've been very adamant about it these last 2 pages of this thread. You think BBs are F-tier due to terrain, that is fine.

Now feel free to take a step back, breathe some air and let others state their opinions, without feeling the need to instantly tell them they are wrong. This thread is literally going in circles.

To put Baneblades in summary:
- Tournament play: Not worth it.
- Friendly games: Okay.

Guys can we give the Baneblade argument a rest already? I think we get all sides at this point and no one is going to change their mind. We have a whole new codex to talk about and so far its been 2 pages of arguing about what exactly usable means. We could be discussing so many different things right now

You know, stuff like situations where 2 custom regiment traits could be superior to Born Soldiers, armored vs infantry approach, whether a brigade or a battalion is the better way to go. Anything else at this point will be more productive

Is born soldiers basically always best? I really want to take the +1 to hit with artillery in range of voxes trait but my gut say it's probably hot garbage.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Guys can we give the Baneblade argument a rest already? I think we get all sides at this point and no one is going to change their mind. We have a whole new codex to talk about and so far its been 2 pages of arguing about what exactly usable means. We could be discussing so many different things right now

You know, stuff like situations where 2 custom regiment traits could be superior to Born Soldiers, armored vs infantry approach, whether a brigade or a battalion is the better way to go. Anything else at this point will be more productive

Leman Russ spam on the drawing board looks good. Armored superiority (regimental doctrine) and shock and awe (mechanised order) should be a problem for my opponent. I plan on bringing 2 tank commanders and an officer with Steel Commissar and around 8-10 Leman Russ battle tanks total.

So today I tried out the Field Ordnance Battery, all three weapons. I honestly expected the Malleus to suck, but I liked that weapon the most - I had Ursula babysit the battery with Take Aim and +1S, and it did a crapton of damage. The Bombast was all kinds of 'meh' but that was expected too. The HLC gave "We have Vanquisher at home" feels, but my opponent was really scared of that battery and it really did more than the actual shooting performance (they took out one of those Primaris hover pickups and maybe 2 Aggressors before getting wiped in the 4th turn). I'm almost pleased with the unit but the 2-models restriction is giving me cancer.

In addition, something I noticed while checking out the new Cadian sprues: the Field Ordnance Battery have sergeant and vox options right on the sprue but no such thing on their dataslate. Take that NMNR! Now you can't have rules even if you do have models!

Yeah I noticed that issue in the new heavy weapon squad pics as well. Not to mention tanks somehow have voxes half as powerful as man portable backpack units If FOBs couldve been taken in squads of 4-6 theyd be a lot more tempting even though theyd be impossible to hide. I get why GW did it though, infantry orders would be pretty nuts on a battery of 4-6 guns just due to the sheer order their splash effect would give. You could order one battery and hit most of your deployment. As is they look cool, are easy to convert or proxy with FW guns, and feel very thematic for IG. A solid example of a "new" unit that feels like its always been in the codex, wish I could say that for other codexes.

Im curious to see how the FW artillery units such as the basilisk/medusa carriage, heavy mortar, and quad mortar turn out. To my understanding all they need is the platoon keyword and theyre set. If so, you could make a really thematic artillery park dug in behind aegis lines that might make artillery usable, at least towed ones. Take Aim basically just lets you ignore the indirect penalties and between all the different ordnance types you could probably run a brigade with a ton of infantry squads and have a decent foot list. Heck you may even be able to make serious use of Expert Bombadiers with sentinels and all the infantry on foot.

Speaking of FW, Im hoping we see a bunch of keyword updates to bring units in line. For example hopefully Hades drills will be updated to take Platoon infantry units, tanks like the Malcadors will get squadron, and maybe we'll see something like the Vulture getting the upgraded punisher cannon statline, though that last one Im not holding my breath on. At the bare minimum, the new tank strats and orders would go a long way to fixing some of the issues many FW tanks have. Theyll all still pale compared to a simple Leman Russ, but certain specialized tanks like the Malcador Infernus could find a niche or at least be fun for casual games. Not to mention certain tank aces could pair well with certain Macharius and Malcador variants.

Right now Im looking at running an armored company thats two tank commanders, 6 russes of various marks, 3 chimeras with infantry, an infantry officer, and a squad of kasrkin with the key. It seems solid to start with and learn the codex, just not sure which regiment traits I want to do just yet. Born Soldiers is good but Armored Superiority would help a lot with holding objectives. Ive also found myself tempted by Grim Demeanor, so that I can backscratch tanks caught in melee with the Acceptable Losses strat but I feel like that gives up a lot of utility for a strategem. Ill probably run Born Soldiers first and see what I feel its missing, then pick two more specialized traits from there.