Otto von Bludd wrote:
Edit: Regarding Vulture loadouts I think there is a case to be made for the Rocket pods. No you don't get 40 shots (you get 4d6, 1D6 per pod), but you get 72" range and -1AP. This means you never need to move so you'll be hitting whatever you want on turn 1 at BS3+. -1AP is really nice; it's never wasted and STR5 is also the sweet spot. I'm considering trying out 2 pods with Lascannons or 4 pods on my Vulture instead of the Gatlings because they seems rather underwhelming to me this edition.

The Hellfury missiles are 72" 2D6 S4 AP0, but the MRPs are D6 36" S5 AP-1, which hovering at that range makes me a little nervous about return fire. For MEQ munching the MRPs seem pretty decent, but what about tank hunting? Two Hellstrike missiles a turn or six equivalent one-shots on the first turn as an alpha strike?

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Given the Pask FAQ and inferring the intent of the rules as written, I'm inclined to believe officers cannot be ordered.

Possibly even more useful than ordering the likes of Yarrick or Pask to fight in the shooting phase is ordering an officer to MOVE MOVE MOVE! in order to keep up with the units that have already done so. I find myself running troops to grab OBJs and then the ordering officer is left in the dust.

This is what the FAQ says:
Q: Can a Tank Commander or Knight Commander Pask issue a Tank Order to themselves?
A: No.

It says nothing about Officers. Nothing. Whoever answered that FAQ, if they had the intent to infer that this applies to ALL units that issue orders, should have made that clear. Until such time, RAW is all we have to go on.

Voice of command is an aura ability where you can select an infantry unit with the same Regimental keyword (so NOT Yarrick) within that aura. The exact wording is this [my commentary in brackets]:
This unit may issue one order per turn to the soldiers under their command at the start of their Shooting phase. [Note: The officer is a "soldier under his own command". Any commander not in command of himself is not really in command of his men either. That being said, THERE ARE NO KEYWORDS IN THIS SENTENCE. Because of this, its effects in relation to who does what to whom is not binding in any way. The only clarification offered here is how many orders can be issued and when they are issued.]
Orders may only be issued to INFANTRY [Hey, look, a keyword that applies to AM officers!] units within 6" of this unit [which includes the unit itself, as per the aura FAQ] that have the same <REGIMENT> [another keyword that does indeed apply to the officer] keyword as this unit. To issue an order, pick a target unit and choose which order you wish to issue from the table below. A unit may only be affected by one order per turn. [I see NOTHING barring an officer from issuing and order to himself, or another officer in the RAW or the FAQ]

It's subservient wording.

A commander is in command, in an official military sense, of his troops.

In the force organization the troops would be below him.

In the same org he would not also be below himself. That makes no sense.

"What are your orders sir?" "Fix bayonets!"
"And what are your orders...to...yourself?"

There are no keywords. You can order yourself all you want. But I wouldn't be playing it like that.

Depends on what you count as an order.

For example, I can't imagine someone ordering themselves to fix bayonets.

However, I can easily see someone 'ordering' themselves in the manner of "Come on, you can do this!"

 rhinoceraids wrote:
It's subservient wording.

A commander is in command, in an official military sense, of his troops.

In the force organization the troops would be below him.

In the same org he would not also be below himself. That makes no sense.

"What are your orders sir?" "Fix bayonets!"
"And what are your orders...to...yourself?"

There are no keywords. You can order yourself all you want. But I wouldn't be playing it like that.

Think of it differently:

Either the officer can focus on doing what he is doing (giving him the benefits of an order) or he can focus on leadership (giving others the benefit of an order). Or, he could lose focus completely, and give no orders.

40k is abstract, and what is called an 'order' may be thought of in a variety of ways. After all, how would you play a regiment that took a vow of silence as penance?

For sure. You can forge whatever narrative you want. Maybe the officer pulls out a mirror and gives himself an order. Or perhaps he has multiple personalities.

Maybe its correct or incorrect. But either way it doesn't change the language used. If you asked any officer in any military about the soldiers under his command. He is likely not going to talk about himself. Poor argument in 40k? Yes. Yes it is.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
For sure. You can forge whatever narrative you want. Maybe the officer pulls out a mirror and gives himself an order. Or perhaps he has multiple personalities.

Maybe its correct or incorrect. But either way it doesn't change the language used. If you asked any officer in any military about the soldiers under his command. He is likely not going to talk about himself. Poor argument in 40k? Yes. Yes it is.

Where are you even going now? I don't understand what you're on about.

Also for the record referencing real life is funny. Next time I talk to an active-duty military person I am going to ask them if having a Priest nearby makes them hit people one extra time in each Fight phase.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
For sure. You can forge whatever narrative you want. Maybe the officer pulls out a mirror and gives himself an order. Or perhaps he has multiple personalities.

Maybe its correct or incorrect. But either way it doesn't change the language used. If you asked any officer in any military about the soldiers under his command. He is likely not going to talk about himself. Poor argument in 40k? Yes. Yes it is.

Where are you even going now? I don't understand what you're on about.

Also for the record referencing real life is funny. Next time I talk to an active-duty military person I am going to ask them if having a Priest nearby makes them hit people one extra time in each Fight phase.

Of course they do! That's what padre's are for!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
For sure. You can forge whatever narrative you want. Maybe the officer pulls out a mirror and gives himself an order. Or perhaps he has multiple personalities.

Maybe its correct or incorrect. But either way it doesn't change the language used. If you asked any officer in any military about the soldiers under his command. He is likely not going to talk about himself. Poor argument in 40k? Yes. Yes it is.

Where are you even going now? I don't understand what you're on about.

Also for the record referencing real life is funny. Next time I talk to an active-duty military person I am going to ask them if having a Priest nearby makes them hit people one extra time in each Fight phase.

Exactly. People should stop making inferences from real life and start reading the RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
Depends on what you count as an order.

For example, I can't imagine someone ordering themselves to fix bayonets.

However, I can easily see someone 'ordering' themselves in the manner of "Come on, you can do this!"

What is and isn't an order doesn't depend on anything we think. It is defined in the codex and each one is in a fancy chart.

My mistake about the 72" range MRPS, I must have confused them with the other missiles. I think lascannons / MRPS is still a nice loadout though because we don't exactly have a plethora of BS3+ lascannons and the adition of the MRPS give you some capability vs infnatry (when combined with the HB) as well as the ability to chip off a few wounds if the lascannons don't finish the job on something big.

Valks aren't inherently bad.

I just hate paying for a lascannon which is going to hit on a 5.

Could bring an officer of the fleet to help allow for rerolling 1's?

Mortars can shoot from a sealed room on the first floor of a 10 story building and hit another unit in a sealed room in a similar building 48" away. Real life has absolutely no bearing on the rules.

RogueApiary wrote:
Mortars can shoot from a sealed room on the first floor of a 10 story building and hit another unit in a sealed room in a similar building 48" away. Real life has absolutely no bearing on the rules.

I keep seeing this. But real life, reality. Does have bearing on this game.

Some parts are grossly exaggerated or flat out wrong. but to say real life has no bearing on the game isn't genuinely true.

There are no shortage of aspects which seem reasonable for a table top game to emulate real life.

Flamers are pretty short range

Mortars, are pretty long range.

Troops move less than bikes, planes, etc. All reasonable.

Vehicles are generally harder to kill than troops.

Realistically battle's wouldn't take place on my kitchen table with inanimate objects. But within the generally accepted paradigm of the game it's very easy to argue that many aspects are a reasonable transition from reality to a tabletop game.

Does everything make sense? No of course not.

Real life and common sense have no place in 40k and I don't care who says otherwise. One common saying around my local group is don't play with common sense play the rules. I read everything as RAW with no exception just like when I play magic

 rhinoceraids wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
Mortars can shoot from a sealed room on the first floor of a 10 story building and hit another unit in a sealed room in a similar building 48" away. Real life has absolutely no bearing on the rules.

I keep seeing this. But real life, reality. Does have bearing on this game.

Some parts are grossly exaggerated or flat out wrong. but to say real life has no bearing on the game isn't genuinely true.

There are no shortage of aspects which seem reasonable for a table top game to emulate real life.

Flamers are pretty short range

Mortars, are pretty long range.

Troops move less than bikes, planes, etc. All reasonable.

Vehicles are generally harder to kill than troops.

Realistically battle's wouldn't take place on my kitchen table with inanimate objects. But within the generally accepted paradigm of the game it's very easy to argue that many aspects are a reasonable transition from reality to a tabletop game.

Does everything make sense? No of course not.

My point is that because quite a few things make no sense, you cannot use real life to extrapolate RAI interpretations. Thus, the magical teleporting mortar rounds example. If the RAW says a guy can yell at himself to go faster, he can yell at himself to go faster. There's no need to come up with some funky narrative to justify it or argue against it.

Unless both players can agree on RAI beforehand, we must default to RAW and FAQ/ERRATA.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Valks aren't inherently bad.

I just hate paying for a lascannon which is going to hit on a 5.

Could bring an officer of the fleet to help allow for rerolling 1's?

I only run them fully loaded anymore. My opponents just don't shoot at them, lol. Which is exactly what I want until I drop off their load of Bullgryn with a Priest and maybe Straken and the other one dumps off a bunch of vets with shotguns and as many flamers as they can carry!

I do actually like the lascannon on it though, I've managed to hit more with that stupid thing on 5+ than my regular guard squads. And the fact it can spit out 2D6 S5 AP-1 MRPs and then the 2x heavy bolters I add is at least fun to throw dice around. But once they drop their loads off, they just can hover and actually do something. I think I may have done more damage to enemy vehicles this edition with heavy bolters than damn near any other weapon system haha.

What are the thoughts on the Malcador tanks?

For 300 points, the Malcador Defender outputs a moderate amount of anti-infantry dakka; and has 18w to boot.

That said, if it moves, it goes down to BS5 (except on the main gun); and while it has +1 to hits on Overwatch - if it gets stuck in melee, it's virtually pointless as it has no Fall Back+Fire rules. I'll be honest, I just love the idea of the Defender - tons of dakka, coupled with a Demolisher cannon; plus a little tankyness and +1 overwatch. Perhaps not the most effective, but, sounds fun.

Edit: Scratch bits about Tarantula turrets - Battlescribe gave me the wrong price; =(.

fe40k wrote:
What are the thoughts on the Malcador tanks/Tarantula Turrets?

For 300 points, the Malcador Defender outputs a moderate amount of anti-infantry dakka; and has 18w to boot.

That said, if it moves, it goes down to BS5 (except on the main gun); and while it has +1 to hits on Overwatch - if it gets stuck in melee, it's virtually pointless as it has no Fall Back+Fire rules. I'll be honest, I just love the idea of the Defender - tons of dakka, coupled with a Demolisher cannon; plus a little tankyness and +1 overwatch. Perhaps not the most effective, but, sounds fun.

Tarantula turrets seem interesting; for 105 points you get 6 immobile lascannons that can only target the nearest non-infantry. Overall they're pretty cheap, and if you place them on the perimeter, can randomly deny deep strikes and portions of the board, as they can spread out 6" from eachother (18+9" board coverage).

I thought the turrets are50 each. 10 pts for the mount and 40 for twin lc. But I may be wrong. .

They are fun. Cool models. Decent anti tank units. Which can hide easily because they are so small. I just don't like immobile units myself. But it's easy enough to bash some together to try.

I've had success with the cyclops. Such a nifty little guy. Tough too.

 rhinoceraids wrote:

fe40k wrote:
What are the thoughts on the Malcador tanks/Tarantula Turrets?

For 300 points, the Malcador Defender outputs a moderate amount of anti-infantry dakka; and has 18w to boot.

That said, if it moves, it goes down to BS5 (except on the main gun); and while it has +1 to hits on Overwatch - if it gets stuck in melee, it's virtually pointless as it has no Fall Back+Fire rules. I'll be honest, I just love the idea of the Defender - tons of dakka, coupled with a Demolisher cannon; plus a little tankyness and +1 overwatch. Perhaps not the most effective, but, sounds fun.

Tarantula turrets seem interesting; for 105 points you get 6 immobile lascannons that can only target the nearest non-infantry. Overall they're pretty cheap, and if you place them on the perimeter, can randomly deny deep strikes and portions of the board, as they can spread out 6" from eachother (18+9" board coverage).

I thought the turrets are50 each. 10 pts for the mount and 40 for twin lc. But I may be wrong. .

They are fun. Cool models. Decent anti tank units. Which can hide easily because they are so small. I just don't like immobile units myself. But it's easy enough to bash some together to try.

I've had success with the cyclops. Such a nifty little guy. Tough too.

You're correct - they're 40 points per Twin Lascannon, plus 10pts base.

Battlescribe was wrong; damn, that makes them seriously less appealing. I was fine with the immobility and auto targeting rules when they were much 25pts for Twin Lascannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So; a while back, I purchased a large army of Astra Militarum. However, there's no defining focus one way or another at the moment; it seems pretty bare bones overall - simply, I'm going to need to purchase more models in any case.

What models do you think I should be heading towards with my current collection?

: 1 Command Squad
: 2 "Squad Commands" (not sure what these are, will have to double check when shipment arrives)
: 1 Commissar Yarrick
: 2 Commissars
: 2 Primaris Psyker
: 13 Psykers
: 2 Regimental Advisors (missing the third)

: 122 Guardsman (90 regular, 32 Mordian metal; various special weapons (willing to convert for more))
: 10 Kasarkin Storm Troopers
: 15 Heavy Weapons Teams (6 Lascannon, 3 Missile Launcher, 3 Heavy Bolter, 3 Mortar)
: 8 Ratlings
: 5 Ogryn
: 1 Sly Marbo

: 1 Leman Russ Demolisher
: 1 Leman Russ Executioner
: 1 Valkyrie

The alternative to running them as Astra Militarum is to run them as Renegades and Heretics; but the consensus is that they are overall worse (on the infantry front anyways) to AM. But, if the Chaos Codex turns out to be cool, it could be worth considering them over playing more Imperials.

From what I can tell, the Leman Russ' in general aren't worth it - perhaps I could convert them into something else. I could run the Guardsman as Conscripts, since they're all the rage; but who knows how long that'll last (good thing they look pretty much identical anyways).

As far as the rest of the army goes; I'm thinking Hydras/Wyverns are next on the purchase list; maybe a couple Basilisks as well. I'll need more Heavy Weapons Teams - which ones seem to be the best? Mortars/Missile Launchers? Also, what about Flyers?

fe40k wrote:

As far as the rest of the army goes; I'm thinking Hydras/Wyverns are next on the purchase list; maybe a couple Basilisks as well. I'll need more Heavy Weapons Teams - which ones seem to be the best? Mortars/Missile Launchers? Also, what about Flyers?

Depends on the direction you want to head in. You have most of what you need to fill up a Brigade detachment except for three fast attacks. Sentinels fill those slots nicely and cheaply, but you could also look into Rough Riders or Hellhounds. From there it's up to you - more footsloggers, more artillery, or even a super-heavy are all valid paths to go down. Manticores/Basilisks are good complements to footsloggers.

HWT seem to be best as either Lascannon or Mortars. Mix and match between squads however you see fit. For flyers, the Valkyrie is a transport first and a gunship second. I'd probably only bring one if you have some big scary melee machine that you really want to get into the fray quickly - Ogryn + Priest fits the bill. If you want flying guns look to the Vulture w/ Punisher cannons or more ideally, go afield in the Imperium and pick up something with PotMS.

You have an amazing collection. Little bit of anything. Conscripts are good, always bring a full 50.

Wyverns are good. I do like weapons that don't need LoS.

Maybe a manticore?

You can find some parts to make a vulture for a flyer. I've been trying a vulture, with a thunderbolt, and a marauder destroyer (Thing rocks!).

Flyers are very good. But they can't hold ground. Maybe some scions to split up your opponent. Traditionally people drive towards guard and carnage continues. Great! Drop some scions or elysians (Maybe play some sentinels as elysian drop sentinels).

People love mortars. I've never used any heavy weapons team ever.

Random question, guys - is there any value in fielding Daemonhosts in an IG list?

 vipoid wrote:
Random question, guys - is there any value in fielding Daemonhosts in an IG list?

Not that I can think of. They don't even fill Elite slots very efficiently. Their only real use in the past was turning on "if a daemon is nearby" abilities, which were very few and far between. I'm not sure those abilities exist anymore, at least not ones that trigger off nearby friendly daemons. You also used to be able to bury them in Acolyte squads, where they were at least half-competent melee fighters.

These days I really don't see any value in them beyond fluff.

KestrelM1 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Random question, guys - is there any value in fielding Daemonhosts in an IG list?

Not that I can think of. They don't even fill Elite slots very efficiently. Their only real use in the past was turning on "if a daemon is nearby" abilities, which were very few and far between. I'm not sure those abilities exist anymore, at least not ones that trigger off nearby friendly daemons. You also used to be able to bury them in Acolyte squads, where they were at least half-competent melee fighters.

These days I really don't any value in them beyond fluff.

Yeah, I think you're right. It's a shame because I like the idea and it seems like I could have fun modelling them. However, them not being characters seems rather silly. As does their pitifully weak statline (WS4+ BS4+, really?). Also, would it really be too much to ask to be able to choose which mutation affects them that turn?

Oh well, I guess I'll have to optimistically hope that they get buffed in whatever Codex they end up in.

 vipoid wrote:
Random question, guys - is there any value in fielding Daemonhosts in an IG list?

Yes. If you are a heretic and wish to be purged!

fe40k wrote:
What are the thoughts on the Malcador tanks?

For 300 points, the Malcador Defender outputs a moderate amount of anti-infantry dakka; and has 18w to boot.

That said, if it moves, it goes down to BS5 (except on the main gun); and while it has +1 to hits on Overwatch - if it gets stuck in melee, it's virtually pointless as it has no Fall Back+Fire rules. I'll be honest, I just love the idea of the Defender - tons of dakka, coupled with a Demolisher cannon; plus a little tankyness and +1 overwatch. Perhaps not the most effective, but, sounds fun.

They are lackluster and basically nothing more than tougher Leman Russes, with 50% more wounds. This is basically where the benefits end. They are all much more expensive (the Defender is 296 points, the Heavy Tank 228, the Annihilator 288 and the Infernus is 320) and either don't have the firepower to justify the additional cost or cost much more than the closest comparable Leman Russ.

*The Heavy is just a Leman Russ with more wounds, and costs ~40% more. It also lacks Grinding Advance as the latest FAQ hasn't added it. The different weapon options are not even close to outweigh these downsides.
*The Defender is just a load of heavy bolters. You could just take two Leman Russes with heavy bolters and be comparable for a 60 points increase (or ~20%), gaining more wounds and useful firepower as well as additional flexibility. The +1 to hit on Overwatch is as nice bonus, but since you can't fire when you disengage, it'll only be of minor help.
*The Annihilator is okay, as a LR Annihilator costs 192 points with a hull lascannon whereas the Malcador one has a 2 lascannons and a Demolisher (or another lascannon, but this is likely a bad choice). If you take sponsons, you have a lot of firepower in one package and having an equivalent number of lascannons on Annihilators will be more expensive although somewhat tougher.
*The Infernus is a tougher, stronger and vastly more expensive Hellhound. I would probably just take 3 of the latter for more wounds, flexibility and almost no difference versus the intended targets.

These comparisons are also only against the Leman Russes (or Hellhound for the Infernus), and we have better choices than them for our heavy supports. In my opinion, the Malcadors rank firmly in the bottom tier and I don't really see a use for them other than as roadblocks.

So something I've been trying out lately and seems to be working is using the Company Command Squad slots to make baby heavy weapons teams (usually have 3-4 officers in my lists). 44 points for a 4 wound bs 3+ lascannon. With a Commissar nearby, they can't fail morale from losing the two bulletcatchers. So far the tendency has been for my opponents to either ignore them, not devote enough firepower to kill the gun in a single round of shooting, or severely overkilling them. I'm guessing this won't work at a competitive level though. Any thoughts/experiences with this setup?

RogueApiary wrote:
So something I've been trying out lately and seems to be working is using the Company Command Squad slots to make baby heavy weapons teams (usually have 3-4 officers in my lists). 44 points for a 4 wound bs 3+ lascannon. With a Commissar nearby, they can't fail morale from losing the two bulletcatchers. So far the tendency has been for my opponents to either ignore them, not devote enough firepower to kill the gun in a single round of shooting, or severely overkilling them. I'm guessing this won't work at a competitive level though. Any thoughts/experiences with this setup?

Only that I'll be giving this a go next time I play IG.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Just considering the purchase of a couple Tauros Venators (would probably convert from cheaper models) because I'm liking the look of the speed combined with dakka -- twinlinked multi-lasers are juicy.

I imagine having a couple of these could be a nasty headache for the enemy --- darting around at high speed, getting into their deployment and fiddling with arty/ long range units and having a 5++ to boot.

They are amazing. I run with them lascannons though.

5++. 15 inch movement. Great looking models if you can afford it. hitting on 4's even if you moved.

A headache for sure.

RogueApiary wrote:
So something I've been trying out lately and seems to be working is using the Company Command Squad slots to make baby heavy weapons teams (usually have 3-4 officers in my lists). 44 points for a 4 wound bs 3+ lascannon. With a Commissar nearby, they can't fail morale from losing the two bulletcatchers. So far the tendency has been for my opponents to either ignore them, not devote enough firepower to kill the gun in a single round of shooting, or severely overkilling them. I'm guessing this won't work at a competitive level though. Any thoughts/experiences with this setup?

Personally I don't see the point in these when you could get a heavy weapons squad and replace the guardsmen with mortar teams. The anti infantry firepower and extra wounds far outweigh bs3+ in my opinion, plus they're a little cheaper

RogueApiary wrote:
So something I've been trying out lately and seems to be working is using the Company Command Squad slots to make baby heavy weapons teams (usually have 3-4 officers in my lists). 44 points for a 4 wound bs 3+ lascannon. With a Commissar nearby, they can't fail morale from losing the two bulletcatchers. So far the tendency has been for my opponents to either ignore them, not devote enough firepower to kill the gun in a single round of shooting, or severely overkilling them. I'm guessing this won't work at a competitive level though. Any thoughts/experiences with this setup?

Battleshock can be devastating for the guard. Even with a commisar, you often find yourself executing the last man or choosing between special or heavy. his seems like an interesting solution.

 DoomMouse wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
So something I've been trying out lately and seems to be working is using the Company Command Squad slots to make baby heavy weapons teams (usually have 3-4 officers in my lists). 44 points for a 4 wound bs 3+ lascannon. With a Commissar nearby, they can't fail morale from losing the two bulletcatchers. So far the tendency has been for my opponents to either ignore them, not devote enough firepower to kill the gun in a single round of shooting, or severely overkilling them. I'm guessing this won't work at a competitive level though. Any thoughts/experiences with this setup?

Personally I don't see the point in these when you could get a heavy weapons squad and replace the guardsmen with mortar teams. The anti infantry firepower and extra wounds far outweigh bs3+ in my opinion, plus they're a little cheaper

Wouldn't Heavy Bolters be better for that purpose, since the squad won't be able to stay out of LoS and still fire their Lascannon?

 DoomMouse wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
So something I've been trying out lately and seems to be working is using the Company Command Squad slots to make baby heavy weapons teams (usually have 3-4 officers in my lists). 44 points for a 4 wound bs 3+ lascannon. With a Commissar nearby, they can't fail morale from losing the two bulletcatchers. So far the tendency has been for my opponents to either ignore them, not devote enough firepower to kill the gun in a single round of shooting, or severely overkilling them. I'm guessing this won't work at a competitive level though. Any thoughts/experiences with this setup?

Personally I don't see the point in these when you could get a heavy weapons squad and replace the guardsmen with mortar teams. The anti infantry firepower and extra wounds far outweigh bs3+ in my opinion, plus they're a little cheaper

I dunno. In my local meta, my opponents have a big enough hateboner for my mortars as it is. So its tough enough keeping them alive by keeping them out of LOS. By putting a lascannon in, it exposes the mortars to return fire from everything that can see the LC unless I remove the lc first, which defeats the purpose of putting it in with the cheaper mortars.

So with that, it seems 2HB 1LC would be the better option, but then your bullet catchers are running 12 points per instead of 6. You get more wounds against single damage weapons but autocannons will treat them the same.

The 4 man setup is a little less vulnerable to 2D weapons than a 3 HWT HWS in that an autocannon will need to deal 3 wounds to kill 2 guardsmen and a lascannon vs those same 3 wounds killing two mortars/hb and a lascannon.

Of things likely to wipe out the 4 man, a lot of them seem like overkill. For example, a storm raven could devote a hurricane bolter rack to each one, but thats 12 boltgun shots not mulching larger squads and not a guarantee of killing them, especially if they're in cover. They would need to turn both banks of hurricane bolters on one to guarantee the kill. Which should overkill them by as much as 3 wounds in the open and 2 in cover.

The bs 3 also gets more mileage out of reroll 1's to hit.

Nevertheless, I suspect the success I've been having is a result of bad opponents and not a virtue of the 4man teams. They seem to apply just enough firepower toward them to kill the bulletcatchers without removing the lc.

Prior to this, I stuck the lascannons in my four infantry squads and it felt really ineffective. It also made 40 bodies that could be capping objectives rooted in place or having to hit on 5's with the lc.

RogueApiary wrote:
By putting a lascannon in, it exposes the mortars to return fire from everything that can see the LC unless I remove the lc first, which defeats the purpose of putting it in with the cheaper mortars.

I don't see the problem, the mortars are cheap. It doesn't really matter if they are used as chaff wounds, just spam some more if you are afraid of losing them all. They even have the same range as the LC.

sossen wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
By putting a lascannon in, it exposes the mortars to return fire from everything that can see the LC unless I remove the lc first, which defeats the purpose of putting it in with the cheaper mortars.

I don't see the problem, the mortars are cheap. It doesn't really matter if they are used as chaff wounds, just spam some more if you are afraid of losing them all. They even have the same range as the LC.

He does lose a point of ballistic skill. 3+ reroll 1s with a lascannon is pretty nice...

CplPunishment wrote:

sossen wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
By putting a lascannon in, it exposes the mortars to return fire from everything that can see the LC unless I remove the lc first, which defeats the purpose of putting it in with the cheaper mortars.

I don't see the problem, the mortars are cheap. It doesn't really matter if they are used as chaff wounds, just spam some more if you are afraid of losing them all. They even have the same range as the LC.

He does lose a point of ballistic skill. 3+ reroll 1s with a lascannon is pretty nice...

Indeed it is, especially since we don't have any other source of BS3+ lascannons (which are worlds better then BS4+). I'm going to try this in my next game because it's a much better way of getting lascannons than a HWTs. You really don't even need a Commissar to babysit the command squads... 90% they will either be totally destroyed or still pass morale on a 3+.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Indeed it is, especially since we don't have any other source of BS3+ lascannons (which are worlds better then BS4+).

What about Veterans?

 vipoid wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Indeed it is, especially since we don't have any other source of BS3+ lascannons (which are worlds better then BS4+).

What about Veterans?

Pretty sure Vets cost more, and for the price most people seem to prefer using their extra special weapon slots and access to shotguns rather than sitting them back. Just my take anyway.

 doc1234 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Indeed it is, especially since we don't have any other source of BS3+ lascannons (which are worlds better then BS4+).

What about Veterans?

Pretty sure Vets cost more, and for the price most people seem to prefer using their extra special weapon slots and access to shotguns rather than sitting them back. Just my take anyway.

Oh, absolutely. I was just pointing out that we do have one other source of BS3+ Lascannons, even if it's not optimal.

 vipoid wrote:

 doc1234 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Indeed it is, especially since we don't have any other source of BS3+ lascannons (which are worlds better then BS4+).

What about Veterans?

Pretty sure Vets cost more, and for the price most people seem to prefer using their extra special weapon slots and access to shotguns rather than sitting them back. Just my take anyway.

Oh, absolutely. I was just pointing out that we do have one other source of BS3+ Lascannons, even if it's not optimal.

Oh, my mistake

You're right, I forgot about ves with Lascannons. When I build a list my elite slots are so congested that I forgot Veterans even existed. That and I can't seem to find a niche for them to fill.

On another note, after playing with both the Basilisk and the Battle Cannon LR I'm starting to think the Vanquisher Cannon is worth a second look. How are Basilisks and LRBTs related to the Vanquisher? The Basilisk's highest of 2d6 shots usually nets me 4-6 shots. If this held true with the Vanquisher's damage roll, I would consistently be landing 4-6 damage. Very seldom do my battle cannons put 4-6 damage on anything and my experience is that being able to reliably put 4-6 damage on something is extremely valuable (Basilisks are great at this). Yes I know the math says the Vanq. is terrible, but it IS consistent (when fired by Pask) where the Battle Cannon is totally unreliable. I'm going to give it a try.

 vipoid wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Indeed it is, especially since we don't have any other source of BS3+ lascannons (which are worlds better then BS4+).

What about Veterans?

I personally like Veteran squads, but if you don't need the special weapons, his way works just fine. For fewer points.

Vets in bastion seems good

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
You're right, I forgot about ves with Lascannons. When I build a list my elite slots are so congested that I forgot Veterans even existed. That and I can't seem to find a niche for them to fill.

On another note, after playing with both the Basilisk and the Battle Cannon LR I'm starting to think the Vanquisher Cannon is worth a second look. How are Basilisks and LRBTs related to the Vanquisher? The Basilisk's highest of 2d6 shots usually nets me 4-6 shots. If this held true with the Vanquisher's damage roll, I would consistently be landing 4-6 damage. Very seldom do my battle cannons put 4-6 damage on anything and my experience is that being able to reliably put 4-6 damage on something is extremely valuable (Basilisks are great at this). Yes I know the math says the Vanq. is terrible, but it IS consistent (when fired by Pask) where the Battle Cannon is totally unreliable. I'm going to give it a try.

Against T7 /3+ with Pask

1* .84 * .66 *.84 = .46

T8
1* .84 * .50 *.84 = .35

So yeah, when that goes through it will hit like a truck. But you're still looking at only 2-3 times in a whole game. That's if he even lives long enough to fire every turn. Meanwhile, you lose the target flexibility of the BC and pay more points.

Compare this to the Demolisher cannon

2* .84 *.66 *.84 = .93

You are likely to put some damage on a target every time it fires. Shorter range limits target selection though.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
You're right, I forgot about ves with Lascannons. When I build a list my elite slots are so congested that I forgot Veterans even existed. That and I can't seem to find a niche for them to fill.

On another note, after playing with both the Basilisk and the Battle Cannon LR I'm starting to think the Vanquisher Cannon is worth a second look. How are Basilisks and LRBTs related to the Vanquisher? The Basilisk's highest of 2d6 shots usually nets me 4-6 shots. If this held true with the Vanquisher's damage roll, I would consistently be landing 4-6 damage. Very seldom do my battle cannons put 4-6 damage on anything and my experience is that being able to reliably put 4-6 damage on something is extremely valuable (Basilisks are great at this). Yes I know the math says the Vanq. is terrible, but it IS consistent (when fired by Pask) where the Battle Cannon is totally unreliable. I'm going to give it a try.

Against T7 /3+ with Pask

1* .84 * .66 *.84 = .46

T8
1* .84 * .50 *.84 = .35

So yeah, when that goes through it will hit like a truck. But you're still looking at only 2-3 times in a whole game. That's if he even lives long enough to fire every turn. Meanwhile, you lose the target flexibility of the BC and pay more points.

Compare this to the Demolisher cannon

2* .84 *.66 *.84 = .93

You are likely to put some damage on a target every time it fires. Shorter range limits target selection though.

If you're going to use the vanquisher, you've got to use the co-axil heavy stubber version from FW. Re-roll to hit if you fire the stubbed at it (also note you don't need to hit with the heavy stubbed RAW, unlike 7e).

What do people think of the Hydra? I am worried about fliers, and really want a definitive answer. Hydra doesn't seem to output much damage when I'm math hammering it... about 4 damage per turn against a 3+ 7t flier. Am I missing something with them?

Unfortunately you are - it's only around 2 damage me turn against those targets if they have 'hard to hit'

The hydra is an autoinclude for me. I've succesfully grounded a dakka jet last time - in the first round. So give it a try next time if you are expecting light air trouble.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
You're right, I forgot about ves with Lascannons. When I build a list my elite slots are so congested that I forgot Veterans even existed. That and I can't seem to find a niche for them to fill.

On another note, after playing with both the Basilisk and the Battle Cannon LR I'm starting to think the Vanquisher Cannon is worth a second look. How are Basilisks and LRBTs related to the Vanquisher? The Basilisk's highest of 2d6 shots usually nets me 4-6 shots. If this held true with the Vanquisher's damage roll, I would consistently be landing 4-6 damage. Very seldom do my battle cannons put 4-6 damage on anything and my experience is that being able to reliably put 4-6 damage on something is extremely valuable (Basilisks are great at this). Yes I know the math says the Vanq. is terrible, but it IS consistent (when fired by Pask) where the Battle Cannon is totally unreliable. I'm going to give it a try.

Even with Pask, the reliability is questionable. You hit more often, but you will still only wound on 4's or 3's depending on target. Armour saves are usually only on 6's, and your damage roll will usually be 4 or better. But you're still not actually killing an enemy tank unless you're lucky with the lascannon or other weapons as well, and with the inconsistency, you'll want to target every weapon on the same enemy.

The problem with the Vanquisher is not really helped by investing even more into a better carrier. You hit 5/6 instead of 3/6 times, but you still only wound 2/3 of 1/2 times. So the chance of causing a wound goes from 21-28% of the cases to 35-46%, assuming 3+ armour. But you're still inflicting your wounds less than half of the time, and can't really expect to kill more than one tank in a game with your Vanquisher (2-3 unsaved wounds per game, ~4-5 damage per unsaved wound, and heavy tanks have more than 10). With a vanquisher cannon and a lascannon, Pask costs 222 points. Adding multi-meltas, 262 or plasma cannons, 252. You're building a very expensive AT-vehicle that isn't actually that good at killing tanks, and while you can expect to make your points back during 6 turns given enough targets, Pask is basically the biggest threat you have unless you run superheavies and any opponent will likely try to neuter him.

The problem with the vanquisher is just that it's a very unreliable weapon that misses often and does nothing on normal tanks, and it also has a decent chance of not wounding due to its S8. So it does not matter if it deals a lot of damage if it has a hard time actually hitting or wounding, and a lascannon is probably just more effective against T8 because it wounds more often. Basilisks are probably better because you can get 2 of them for about the same price. and Earthshakers even more so.

I am just trying really hard to justify including the Vanq. because I like how the tank looks and what it is conceptually. I really hope they at least make it STR9 in the codex. It's even more expensive than the battle cannon to add insult to injury.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
I am just trying really hard to justify including the Vanq. because I like how the tank looks and what it is conceptually. I really hope they at least make it STR9 in the codex. It's even more expensive than the battle cannon to add insult to injury.

If they gave it Str9 it would suddenly be a lot more attractive, I think. I don't know what they were thinking when they designed this. I think it makes sense for the vanquisher to be S9 and maybe even AP-3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Vanquisher was great in 3rd, but has never been the same since. They need to go back to the drawing board with it.

In all honesty, giving it S9 without increasing its cost shouldn't warrant any complaint. A lascannon is 20 points and the only thing a S9 vanquisher would have over it is the 2d6 pick highest for damage as well as the range. This comes out to ~28% more expected damage on an unsaved wound for 25% more cost at 24" longer max distance, which given that it's a LR main gun, could be considered pretty balanced.

Of course, it probably won't do much to alleviate the main issues with having a single Heavy 1 shot but it's something at least.

Hm see theres the thing: the Battlecannon has D6 shots, adding another randoming factor that will probably need a command roll or two during the battle. Even Pask with his mighty BS2+ will suffer from a roll of a 1 for the amount of shots.

The there is ap-2 vs ap-3. Often ap-2 turns the enemys save into a 5+. This means that the might use a command reroll on the save.
But the ap-3 turns it into a 6+ save, no-one in their right mind is gonna spend a command point rerolling that.

And lastly, correct me if im wrong, but im sure the average of 2d6 discard the lowest is +-5. You have 75% chance to get at least a 4+.

Feels like it's a dumb question but that's never stopped me before:

The Vox, can they daisy chain? Commander relays order through his command squad to infantry squad A that's nearby, which relays it to infantry squad B thats near A, but not in range of the command squad. Or is it just straight "this vox can only talk to one vox at a time, because no one likes talking to each other in the AM"

Doctoralex wrote:
Hm see theres the thing: the Battlecannon has D6 shots, adding another randoming factor that will probably need a command roll or two during the battle. Even Pask with his mighty BS2+ will suffer from a roll of a 1 for the amount of shots.

The there is ap-2 vs ap-3. Often ap-2 turns the enemys save into a 5+. This means that the might use a command reroll on the save.
But the ap-3 turns it into a 6+ save, no-one in their right mind is gonna spend a command point rerolling that.

And lastly, correct me if im wrong, but im sure the average of 2d6 discard the lowest is +-5. You have 75% chance to get at least a 4+.

- The game is built on randoming factors, but a battle cannon will usually perform close to average whereas a vanquisher either does nothing or does a lot.
- Forcing a command re-roll isn't always terrible, and your opponent will usually have fewer than you. Spending it will also disallow other use of it and that might help you in the long run.
- 2d6 pick highest is 4.47, so right between 4 and 5. But even with that 2d6 p.h, you're usually not doing much with that shot, as most tanks only loses characteristics when losing 6 wounds or more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doc1234 wrote:
Feels like it's a dumb question but that's never stopped me before:

The Vox, can they daisy chain? Commander relays order through his command squad to infantry squad A that's nearby, which relays it to infantry squad B thats near A, but not in range of the command squad. Or is it just straight "this vox can only talk to one vox at a time, because no one likes talking to each other in the AM"

You extend the range of the order to 18" if the target also contains a vox. So no chaining.

I.e. you have an officer with a vox nearby. You can order units without voxes within 6", and units with voxes that are within 18".

Doctoralex wrote:
Hm see theres the thing: the Battlecannon has D6 shots, adding another randoming factor that will probably need a command roll or two during the battle. Even Pask with his mighty BS2+ will suffer from a roll of a 1 for the amount of shots.

The there is ap-2 vs ap-3. Often ap-2 turns the enemys save into a 5+. This means that the might use a command reroll on the save.
But the ap-3 turns it into a 6+ save, no-one in their right mind is gonna spend a command point rerolling that.

And lastly, correct me if im wrong, but im sure the average of 2d6 discard the lowest is +-5. You have 75% chance to get at least a 4+.

Yes I agree with you and that has been my experience. Command Points are almost pointless to use on the BC because there are so many random stages to go through; you can re-roll your D6 shots but then you can't re-roll wounds or, more importantly, your damage result, and even if you could re-rolling 1 d3 is pretty unattractive. Rolling a 1 for BC shots on Pask is horrible, really anything below a 4 feels horrible, and it happens 50% of the time. The AP-2 VS -3 is also a big deal because the BC usually only squeaks 1-2 wounds onto a target and having a 4+ or 5+ vs those wounds usually reduces it to 1, which is then only 3 damage max. Pask with a Vanq. on the other hand will hit 5/6 shots, can CP re-roll his wound roll if need be, and then has another built in re-roll for damage. That's a pretty reliable 5-6 wounds on T7 (the majority of vehicles and against which the STR 8 is just as good as STR 9) and even T8 with a re-roll. In my experience the BC, even on Pask, seldom does damage like that to high T targets, and I'm finding the only thing that can make me struggle as Guard is enough high T targets.

I do realy like the vanquisher, despite it is dissapointing. What do you think of the marcharius vanquisher? It haven't been a good point investment in 7th edition. Haven't tried it yet in 8th...

Vanquisher cannons should be the difinitive answer to T8 3+ sv vehicles and monsters, which means it should be at least S9 with AP-3 plus its 2d6 pick the highest damage. Right now it is a cool concept with mediocre rules. There is no doubt that you will have some moments of success with it. But simply put, it isfar less than it could and should be.

I mean, if they really want to emphasize it as the premier AT russ weapon, especially compared to the Annihilator Russ, it should gain a +1 to hit against Vehicles and Monsters on top of being S9, similar to how hydras get +1 to hit against units with Fly. Hell, give it a -1 to hit against infantry if you want a downside (it won't be aiming at them anyways).

What if the Vanquisher gun did a straight 6 damage?

That would make it a brutal anti-tank gun. I would like that, seems a bit on the powerful side though.

Going from 2d6 pick highest to 6 isn't that much of an increase, but they seem to dislike high, straight damage on weapons.

D6 damage but 1-3 = 3 damage minimum. Like the neutron laser.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
D6 damage but 1-3 = 3 damage minimum. Like the neutron laser.

For the record, I'd still never take one.

I don't even bother with Russes. And I only own 1 Bailisk. I wish I could get my hands on some Earthshaker platforms.

CplPunishment wrote:
Unless both players can agree on RAI beforehand, we must default to RAW and FAQ/ERRATA.

And what if no one can agree on RAW, because people are interpreting RAW differently?

RAW isn't this magical thing that's 100% clear all the time forever and furthermore always agrees with your opinion.

Hope the codex helps russes a bit. Maybe?

Wyvern, manticore, basilisk are all decent at holding an objective in your back end.

 Melissia wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:
Unless both players can agree on RAI beforehand, we must default to RAW and FAQ/ERRATA.

And what if no one can agree on RAW, because people are interpreting RAW differently?

RAW isn't this magical thing that's 100% clear all the time forever and furthermore always agrees with your opinion.

If the rules truly are that unclear, RAW has a solution to this: roll off and the winner chooses the interpretation that will be used for the remainder of the game.

The problem with this current dispute is that people are basing their argument off of a sentence devoid of keywords, and making up their own definition of what constitutes an aura, rather than consulting the rules. RAW in the case of officers ordering themselves is only "unclear" to those who simply don't want it to be possible.

It seems you can fire the lasgun on a HWT now. Dunno why I didn't notice it earlier. Kinda surprised they didn't just split them back up into two models at this point.

 daedalus wrote:
It seems you can fire the lasgun on a HWT now. Dunno why I didn't notice it earlier. Kinda surprised they didn't just split them back up into two models at this point.

I still run mine as two separate models and a gun (I have some old style metal Cadians). I also have some of the newer single base HWTs and never run them because I hate that single base so much.

Yeah, I'm begrudingly rebasing my mordians lascannon guys onto the big base now, because I get anal-retentive about that kind of stuff. I severely dislike the big base too.

Anybody run the preator? I have one and I want to use it. Such a cool model.

It has 2D6 shots AP-2, D6 dmg. For one of the fire types

and 1D6 shots. AP-2 D6 dmg (Add 1 when shooting dudes with the fly keyword)

Which would be better vs fliers. It would be hitting on 5's with the anti-armour type. But its 2D6 vs 1D6. Thoughts?

Papa Basilisk? Yeah, I have one. I haven't run it yet, but it looks effective enough on paper. I'm a little concerned about the minimum range though, particularly as fast as it feels people get to close range nowadays.

Well I want something that can sit on an objective and have some sticking power.

Papa Basilisk. I like that haha. The minimum range is a concern. But it has better range than most armies long range stuff. So sit it far back on an objective and let it fly.

Plus the things huge. Hide entire squads behind it. Chimera's, russes, HWT's lol.

 daedalus wrote:
Papa Basilisk? Yeah, I have one. I haven't run it yet, but it looks effective enough on paper. I'm a little concerned about the minimum range though, particularly as fast as it feels people get to close range nowadays.

Read the Earthshaker Cannon's rules again. Unless it got FAQ'd, there is no minimum range.

He means the preator.

2 of its fire types has a 12" min range

Hey guys, if you were to run a Leman Russ Conqueror, what hull weapon and sponsors would you bring on it? Heavy bolters all around?

Yeah, sorry, Praetor == Papa Basilisk. It was a joke.

 Zuri Prime wrote:
Hey guys, if you were to run a Leman Russ Conqueror, what hull weapon and sponsors would you bring on it? Heavy bolters all around?

3 Plasma Cannons because I can.

 Aenarian wrote:

 Zuri Prime wrote:
Hey guys, if you were to run a Leman Russ Conqueror, what hull weapon and sponsors would you bring on it? Heavy bolters all around?

3 Plasma Cannons because I can.

blows up turn 1 in a blaze of glory

Doctoralex wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:

 Zuri Prime wrote:
Hey guys, if you were to run a Leman Russ Conqueror, what hull weapon and sponsors would you bring on it? Heavy bolters all around?

3 Plasma Cannons because I can.

blows up turn 1 in a blaze of glory

But it will be a glorious blaze.

Quick question:
What do you primarily use for tank hunting? (No FW entries please)

 Aenarian wrote:

 Zuri Prime wrote:
Hey guys, if you were to run a Leman Russ Conqueror, what hull weapon and sponsors would you bring on it? Heavy bolters all around?

3 Plasma Cannons because I can.

That actually sounds fun.

 lash92 wrote:
Quick question:
What do you primarily use for tank hunting? (No FW entries please)

- Lascannons in Infantry Squads
- Missile Launchers in Infantry Squads
- Plasma-Scions
- Sometimes Lascannon Armoured Sentinels

 lash92 wrote:
Quick question:
What do you primarily use for tank hunting? (No FW entries please)

Shadowsword if you have a really tough nut to crack.
Veterans with lascannons and plasma are great with reroll buffs.
Basilisk doesn't need LOS, wounds most vehicles on 3+ and rolls 2d6pick highest for shots.

 Aenarian wrote:

 Zuri Prime wrote:
Hey guys, if you were to run a Leman Russ Conqueror, what hull weapon and sponsors would you bring on it? Heavy bolters all around?

3 Plasma Cannons because I can.

I didn't notice this. Triple-MM tanks here we goooooooo!

Shadowsword is really hit and miss. D6 shots suuuucks when you roll a 1-2. Hitting on 4's. Maybe 5's. Maybe 6's.

Id rather have 3 manticores or something. Least I get more dice to roll. Not 3 dice that NEED to roll high.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Shadowsword is really hit and miss. D6 shots suuuucks when you roll a 1-2. Hitting on 4's. Maybe 5's. Maybe 6's.

Id rather have 3 manticores or something. Least I get more dice to roll. Not 3 dice that NEED to roll high.

That's why you fire the Shadowsword first--so you aren't tempted to waste a reroll on something else. Park Harker next to it and things get nasty. It's the kind of thing you bring in big games where it will be indispensable. It hits Titanic units on 3+.

Manticores are better for smaller games, but I don't own any.

I still want to make the Valdor good. I am looking at making a Tank Destruction company as the 6th company for my regiment, and I have 2 Valdors. If they were 'good enough' then I could field a Shadowsword as the company command vehicle, and be awesome.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
It seems you can fire the lasgun on a HWT now. Dunno why I didn't notice it earlier. Kinda surprised they didn't just split them back up into two models at this point.

I still run mine as two separate models and a gun (I have some old style metal Cadians). I also have some of the newer single base HWTs and never run them because I hate that single base so much.

I actually take some green stuff and build up a small mound where the spotter goes such that I can put an infantry dude base under him and place him in a hole made in the mound so the spotter looks like his base is part of the HWT base. Then when the model loses one of his two wounds I grab the spotter leaving just the gunner.

Yeah. Id use a re-roll on a 1-2. Then maybe roll better, maybe not.

Again. Hitting on 4's. If I didn't move. Too important of a roll for my nerves.

Edit- Ref: Shadowsword. Win big lose big

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Yeah. Id use a re-roll on a 1-2. Then maybe roll better, maybe not.

Again. Hitting on 4's. If I didn't move. Too important of a roll for my nerves.

When you do 2d6 damage, have AP-5 and wound most T8 on a 2+, you only need one or two hits to cripple most heavy vehicles.
Even when I roll badly, I get around 10-13D/turn with the main gun alone.
Also, its firepower can't be neutralized by a grot within 1".

How good is the normal Baneblade for tank hunting, compared to the Shadowsword?

 lash92 wrote:
How good is the normal Baneblade for tank hunting, compared to the Shadowsword?

Depending on sponson loadout, perfectly adequate. The Shadowsword averages 3.5 shots with 2d6 damage, and the Baneblade averages 2d6 shots with 3 damage, so only .5 damage different on average (the order you roll the dice and inflict damage doesn't actually matter, the averages are the same).

The Shadowsword is better in the following ways:
1) Wounding on a 2+ rather than a 3+ against most targets
2) Against Titanic units, hitting on a 3+
3) Against Titanic units, re-rolling to wound.

The Baneblade is better in the following ways:
1) Demolisher cannon secondary weapon
2) Autocannon secondary weapon (of questionable value against truly hard targets)

The Shadowsword excels at hunting tanks, and especially at hunting Titanic units, over the Baneblade, but the Baneblade is certainly adequate and up to the task.

I'm running a Brigade and a Spearhead at 1500 pts giving me 13 Command points. Assuming I use one to steal initiative that still leaves me with 12 Command Points for the next "5" go's. There is nothing worse than finishing the game with Command points left. What do people find are the most efficient uses of CPs with AM? Is interrupting a charging unit with conscripts worth 2 or would I be better off using the rerolls for number of shots my Manticores get on a 2D6. Its a pretty open question but I was wondering what has and has not worked for other players.

Also can someone post a link to a 8th edition AM vrs AM battlereport. I can't find one anywhere.

CaptainO wrote:
I'm running a Brigade and a Spearhead at 1500 pts giving me 13 Command points. Assuming I use one to steal initiative that still leaves me with 12 Command Points for the next "5" go's. There is nothing worse than finishing the game with Command points left. What do people find are the most efficient uses of CPs with AM? Is interrupting a charging unit with conscripts worth 2 or would I be better off using the rerolls for number of shots my Manticores get on a 2D6. Its a pretty open question but I was wondering what has and has not worked for other players.

Also can someone post a link to a 8th edition AM vrs AM battlereport. I can't find one anywhere.

I think the shooting phase is the most useful way to spend those CP.
E.g. for increasing the number of shots (see our Shadowsword discussion).
But they could also be useful if you need a D6 for rolling damage. (Lascanons)

But there are not 13 shooting phases per game so you need an alternate way for spending the CP. For example disrupting a charge.
I am really looking forward to our own Stratagems, which will definitely provide a nice way to spend all those CP which Imperial Guard can easily accumulate.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The Shadowsword is better in the following ways:

The Shadowsword also has -2 extra AP (-5 total) over the baneblade cannon, which makes a huge difference when going after 3+ or 2+ targets. Overall the guns behave like you'd expect them to: the Shadowsword kills vehicles/monsters better, the Baneblade is more take-all-comers.

I don't think the Shadowsword is as unreliable as people are saying. For one, stowing away a couple command points to re-roll the shot count is a very good investment. Second, the Shadowsword may hit on 4+, but each hit is highly likely to cause damage thanks to S16 and AP-5. You only need 2 wounds to reliably cripple or kill heavy tanks, and against things that need more than 14 damage to kill, you get +1 to hit and re-rolls to wound.

I know 1d6 shots isn't everyone's cup of tea, but in the Shadowsword's case I think it's worth overlooking for the gun's other strengths.

Auto-passing morale denied genestealer cultists prime infiltration spots and won the game (along with Straken interrupting combat and slaying a flyrant).

KestrelM1 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The Shadowsword is better in the following ways:

The Shadowsword also has -2 extra AP (-5 total) over the baneblade cannon, which makes a huge difference when going after 3+ or 2+ targets. Overall the guns behave like you'd expect them to: the Shadowsword kills vehicles/monsters better, the Baneblade is more take-all-comers.

I don't think the Shadowsword is as unreliable as people are saying. For one, stowing away a couple command points to re-roll the shot count is a very good investment. Second, the Shadowsword may hit on 4+, but each hit is highly likely to cause damage thanks to S16 and AP-5. You only need 2 wounds to reliably cripple or kill heavy tanks, and against things that need more than 14 damage to kill, you get +1 to hit and re-rolls to wound.

I know 1d6 shots isn't everyone's cup of tea, but in the Shadowsword's case I think it's worth overlooking for the gun's other strengths.

You're right! I did forget the AP value difference.

Most tanks are 3+, so the Baneblade has an additional 16% chance of failure which the Shadowsword does not suffer from.

You can use that reroll for:
First turn
Advancing
Psychic phase/deny the witch
Saves
Morale
Any critical moment, really!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, rerolls are once per PHASE, not turn. Always remember that!

 lash92 wrote:

CaptainO wrote:
I'm running a Brigade and a Spearhead at 1500 pts giving me 13 Command points. Assuming I use one to steal initiative that still leaves me with 12 Command Points for the next "5" go's. There is nothing worse than finishing the game with Command points left. What do people find are the most efficient uses of CPs with AM? Is interrupting a charging unit with conscripts worth 2 or would I be better off using the rerolls for number of shots my Manticores get on a 2D6. Its a pretty open question but I was wondering what has and has not worked for other players.

Also can someone post a link to a 8th edition AM vrs AM battlereport. I can't find one anywhere.

I think the shooting phase is the most useful way to spend those CP.
E.g. for increasing the number of shots (see our Shadowsword discussion).
But they could also be useful if you need a D6 for rolling damage. (Lascanons)

But there are not 13 shooting phases per game so you need an alternate way for spending the CP. For example disrupting a charge.
I am really looking forward to our own Stratagems, which will definitely provide a nice way to spend all those CP which Imperial Guard can easily accumulate.

One reroll a phase does limit us. I'm thinking of running 3 astropaths to buff my armour saves so a few rerolls for the invariable Perils of the Warp would be handy. I assume its always worth rerolling one of the two perils dice rather than saving it for the D3 wounds (astropath 15pts for 3 wounds?!?!)

Assuming I use one CP in each Physic phase (highly unlikely) and one CP in each shooting phase (very likely with the amount of 2D6 shots or D6 damage weapons I'm running. I'll still have at least one "charge interruption" on me (2CP). Pretty sweet.

Hopefully we get the orbital bombardment similar to the Space Marines. I might end up using a CP reroll to ensure the area of the D6" bombardment is worthwhile.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I didn't notice this. Triple-MM tanks here we goooooooo!

When you have the option of potentially suffering 18 mortal wounds turn 1? I don't think you're sacrificing yourself hard enough, guardsman!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still want to make the Valdor good. I am looking at making a Tank Destruction company as the 6th company for my regiment, and I have 2 Valdors. If they were 'good enough' then I could field a Shadowsword as the company command vehicle, and be awesome.

I think a Valdor is 'good enough' for whatever an internet stranger's opinion is worth, but I think it could do with some buffing. However, fielding your company would probably be silly outside huge games, because if I ran one of those tanks I would be happy enough.

 Aenarian wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I didn't notice this. Triple-MM tanks here we goooooooo!

When you have the option of potentially suffering 18 mortal wounds turn 1? I don't think you're sacrificing yourself hard enough, guardsman!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still want to make the Valdor good. I am looking at making a Tank Destruction company as the 6th company for my regiment, and I have 2 Valdors. If they were 'good enough' then I could field a Shadowsword as the company command vehicle, and be awesome.

I think a Valdor is 'good enough' for whatever an internet stranger's opinion is worth, but I think it could do with some buffing. However, fielding your company would probably be silly outside huge games, because if I ran one of those tanks I would be happy enough.

I routinely field superheavy tank companies at 1500-2k. It's fun! And yes my opponents have fun too.

I quite like the LR Annihilator for my AT needs. It can be buffed by a Tank Commander and Fire and Shroud is a great order to keep them alive in those critical first turns. I'm going to run 2 of them with Pask in a Vanquisher in my next game supported by a Techpriest and Astropath. Pask will have a 2+ while the Annihilators will fire and shroud first turn.

Just played a game fielding my bullgryn again. Man they soak up wounds.

Had a 2 Heavy flamer chimera. 4 with slabshields and mauls.

Get them in cover for a +1 save. Crazy good!

Fun units too. They are still bigger than primaris marines.

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Just played a game fielding my bullgryn again. Man they soak up wounds.

Had a 2 Heavy flamer chimera. 4 with slabshields and mauls.

Get them in cover for a +1 save. Crazy good!

Fun units too. They are still bigger than primaris marines.

If you give one the invuln shield, you'll be able to pick him for rolling saves if they hit you with something like a lascannon. Works until he takes a wound of course, then you lose the choice until he's dead. I think the best way to run them is half / half.

Wouldn't it be better to take 3 Bullgryns + Priest + Lord Commissar with Power fist?

I've run that + Astropath for +1 to saves

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

KestrelM1 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The Shadowsword is better in the following ways:

The Shadowsword also has -2 extra AP (-5 total) over the baneblade cannon, which makes a huge difference when going after 3+ or 2+ targets. Overall the guns behave like you'd expect them to: the Shadowsword kills vehicles/monsters better, the Baneblade is more take-all-comers.

I don't think the Shadowsword is as unreliable as people are saying. For one, stowing away a couple command points to re-roll the shot count is a very good investment. Second, the Shadowsword may hit on 4+, but each hit is highly likely to cause damage thanks to S16 and AP-5. You only need 2 wounds to reliably cripple or kill heavy tanks, and against things that need more than 14 damage to kill, you get +1 to hit and re-rolls to wound.

I know 1d6 shots isn't everyone's cup of tea, but in the Shadowsword's case I think it's worth overlooking for the gun's other strengths.

You're right! I did forget the AP value difference.

Most tanks are 3+, so the Baneblade has an additional 16% chance of failure which the Shadowsword does not suffer from.

True, but you have to keep in mind that a LOT of things the Shadowsword wants to shoot at have at least a 5++, most notibly Knights. This means the precious ap-5 will do just as much as ap-2 (most super-heavies still only have a 3+ save, oddly enough).

With such a high-powered shot, you can bet your ass your opponent is gonna re-roll one of the saves it has to make.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aenarian wrote:

 Zuri Prime wrote:
Hey guys, if you were to run a Leman Russ Conqueror, what hull weapon and sponsors would you bring on it? Heavy bolters all around?

3 Plasma Cannons because I can.

Wow that´s a good weapon option choice. That for the LR Annihilator and you field a true Annihilator.

rhinoceraids wrote:Hope the codex helps russes a bit. Maybe?

Wyvern, manticore, basilisk are all decent at holding an objective in your back end.

Russes need a lot help.

In the last editions on average i got 1 auto-hit with a small template and 3 auto-hits with a large template.
Now tranferring those numbers to 8th we either need
- the rule "hits automatically" (that would need to be added to any "previous template-weapon" and would make the flamers less special)
- or double the number of shot as we acutally have.

Then with the battlecannon you get 3.5 auto-hits or 2D6 shots, which translate to 7 on average and with a BS of 4+ again 3.5 hits. Which is very close to the average 3 hits of previous versions.

The weapons got way better against tough single models but hordes won´t fear them.

May be 1 D3 per starting 5 models in the target unit (for all weapons that had a large template, for small templates it could be 1d3 per starting 10 models). A 50 conscipts blob would have to cope with 10 d3, average 20 shots or 10 hits.
A Swarmlord would only suffer from 1 D3 shots or 1 hit.
Sounds very balanced to me. Thoughts?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I routinely field superheavy tank companies at 1500-2k. It's fun! And yes my opponents have fun too.

Well, as long as everyone's happy there's nothing to complain about. I probably wouldn't because I enjoy the smaller units far more, but hey, each to his or her own.

Psykers are amazing. Just used 8 astropaths for 120pts in a 2k game. Over the 6 turns they too 4 wounds from a stormraven, 5 from a dreadnought, 3 from a land raider, 4 from an imperial knight, three from a predator and two from Guilliman. The game ended with me tabling him.

They're not even that easy to kill with three wounds and character protection

Fellow Guard commanders, question:

What in the flying !@#$ are we going to do against a Magnus?

With the new CSM codex, he can get a 3++, rerolling 1's. While I'm getting flashbacks to 7th deamons with their 2++ rerollable save, let's discuss on what we can do.

First of all I don't think we should ignore our own psykers against him. While he has a wooping +2 to cast, even Magnus will get a meager 6 or 7 on their total cast roll now and then. Easy enough to deny especially with a command re-roll at the ready.

But what else? I guess we can send Straken in.... spits on the ground 'Eh, Been there, Seen it, Killed it.' casually charges Magnus alone

 lash92 wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to take 3 Bullgryns + Priest + Lord Commissar with Power fist?

At that point I find I'm really investing in the bullgryn. Besides I want them crammed in a chimera going towards something. Besides they are there to help protect the squishy humans.

Really fun units. Highly recommended.

Doctoralex wrote:
Fellow Guard commanders, question:

What in the flying !@#$ are we going to do against a Magnus?

With the new CSM codex, he can get a 3++, rerolling 1's. While I'm getting flashbacks to 7th deamons with their 2++ rerollable save, let's discuss on what we can do.

First of all I don't think we should ignore our own psykers against him. While he has a wooping +2 to cast, even Magnus will get a meager 6 or 7 on their total cast roll now and then. Easy enough to deny especially with a command re-roll at the ready.

But what else? I guess we can send Straken in.... spits on the ground 'Eh, Been there, Seen it, Killed it.' casually charges Magnus alone

Full disclosure, I havent played against magnus yet so am just tossing ideas out there with no real experience. A few attempts at mathing out the firepower needed to drop him suggests you can't do it cost effectively. Two Hydras get a whopping 2 damage in on him per round of shooting. I thought maybe hellfire boltgun rounds from deathwatch might work but you need a stupid number of them.

That said, I suppose you could take a large number of conscripts and create a lattice of guardsmen 18" deep to delay magnus from smiting/assaulting the good stuff while you try to kill the rest of his army. Not familiar with the other chaos powers so maybe he has a way to get around that.

Another option might be to take nothing but infantry/scions/hwts so there are no good targets for magnus to beat on that could possibly let him earn his points back. Dropping in the scions as far away from him as possible while you kill the rest of his force.

Failing all that, maybe a Culexus or two? Probably won't kill him, but keep charging magnus and force him to hit on 6's and either he falls back preventing him from charging or he has to take the occasional damage from the Culexus in melee staying in combat.

Comedy option: 10 cyclops demolition vehicles.

How many powers can he deny a turn? Cos 2 primaris psykers and 8 astropaths (in a vanguard detachment) might stack a decent number of mortal wounds on him while having the chance to deny a few of his powers.

I think a Culexus and a Primaris Psyker and Astropath are probably required. That would also be an excellent time for a Vindicare and 10 Ratlings to do their thing.

What is his toughness?

What is he, T8 18 Wounds? 2+ / 3++?

If he is T8 then damn, otherwise I'd say Wyverns. Each one does 2W / turn (against T7)

Magnus is:

Ws 2+, Bs 2+, S8, T7, W 18 and 3+ 4++ rerolling 1's.
Movement 16 with Fly and will no doubt cast warp-time n himself, granting him 32 movement.

Also has reroll 1's to hit.

Can cast and deny 3 spell and gets +2 to his cast and deny rolls at full wounds.

And also an absolute monster in melee: 7 A, S16!, ap-4, 3 dmg. If the 1K sons player had paid the points for it and he kills a character, he can summon a Spawn.

So yea....

Doctoralex wrote:
Magnus is:

Ws 2+, Bs 2+, S8, T7, W 18 and 3+ 4++ rerolling 1's.
Movement 16 with Fly and will no doubt cast warp-time n himself, granting him 32 movement.

Also has reroll 1's to hit.

Can cast and deny 3 spell and gets +2 to his cast and deny rolls at full wounds.

And also an absolute monster in melee: 7 A, S16!, ap-4, 3 dmg. If the 1K sons player had paid the points for it and he kills a character, he can summon a Spawn.

So yea....

How many points is he?

Re-rolling ones on any saves or just ++?

vipoid wrote:How many points is he?

As much as 4 naked Coteaz and an astropath.

Razerous wrote:Re-rolling ones on any saves or just ++?

Only ++, but they have a power which gives +1 to ++ saves.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way, if i read it correctly, that power would negate his aura reroll since he would no longer roll any 1's.

Spoletta wrote:

vipoid wrote:How many points is he?

As much as 4 naked Coteaz and an astropath.

Razerous wrote:Re-rolling ones on any saves or just ++?

Only ++, but they have a power which gives +1 to ++ saves.

A slightly less oblique reference.. maybe in relation to your standard basic loadout hellhound?

As for the save.. each of those wyverns do 1.5 wounds assuming he doesn't have the buffed save. Otherwise its 1 wound. Roughly.

So cheap massed non-str 3 shooting. Or mortal wounds, probably the most cost-effective methods.

4 Hellhounds, with one equipped with a multi melta.

Maybe not multi-meltas, but a couple of meltas on some guardsman/vets isn't a bad idea.

Still wounds Magnus on 3+ and there's only so many 3++ rerolling 1's he can make. Then a successful wound will do 2D6 take the highest dmg, chomping off a fair amount of wounds.

If he takes the 3++ he cannot reroll 1's.

Wait, don't you reroll THEN apply modifiers?

Asking for a friend, but which do you guys believe would add more impact to a list, in a vacuum, all else being equal...

1. 1 Tempestor Prime with a Plasma Scion Command Squad

or

2. Taking Yarrick to hang out in back and give his re-roll 1's to a group of three Earth-Shakers, and three Quad Heavy Mortars?

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Asking for a friend, but which do you guys believe would add more impact to a list, in a vacuum, all else being equal...

1. 1 Tempestor Prime with a Plasma Scion Command Squad

or

2. Taking Yarrick to hang out in back and give his re-roll 1's to a group of three Earth-Shakers, and three Quad Heavy Mortars?

Yarrick is too big of an investment just for rerolling 1s to hit. Take Harker instead. Yarrick does so much more, and you pay for it. That saves you 80 points.

I've been rolling with Yarrick. Maybe not the most competitive but a pretty cool dude. Still not sure about his Iron Will.


Say he gets killed. Does he come back on a 3 negating the rest of the wounds?

 rhinoceraids wrote:
I've been rolling with Yarrick. Maybe not the most competitive but a pretty cool dude. Still not sure about his Iron Will.


Say he gets killed. Does he come back on a 3 negating the rest of the wounds?

Hmm. That's a good question. If you hit Yarrick with a lascannon for 6 damage, do you have to roll the 3+ save 3 times, or once?

I would assume it would be 3 times. Each of those damage is taking one of his Wounds away. Lose 3 wounds, then on wound 4, you roll a 3+, then again, then again. Because its referencing HIS wound loss, not the incoming damage.

This is GW's fault for keeping previous edition Wounds and Damage terminology, with weird overlaps.

Roll a D6 each time his last wound is lost. On a 3+ that wound is not lost.

Seems like its past tense and works like the old rule. He dies, shots are finished. And he comes back. (3+)

It significantly changes the utility of him.

I've been using him as just a 3+ and that's it. It never even occurred to me about multiple damage wounds ... Thinking about it more I'm pretty sure it's just supposed to be after his last wound is lost, it doesn't read like any of the FNP equivalents and you can't lose your last wound more than once due to multiple damage, right?

Doesn't the rulebook say something about excess damage being "lost"?

Thats what Im thinking now. But I think we're biased.

Still. Last wound. What happens what something loses its last wound. Shooting/combat hits stop.

But it goes back to present tense when it says that "that wound is not lost"

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Asking for a friend, but which do you guys believe would add more impact to a list, in a vacuum, all else being equal...

1. 1 Tempestor Prime with a Plasma Scion Command Squad

or

2. Taking Yarrick to hang out in back and give his re-roll 1's to a group of three Earth-Shakers, and three Quad Heavy Mortars?

We'd have to see the rest of his list to see what needs beefing. It sounds like he's got a decent Artillery section, but how many Counter-attack/Objective-grabbing units like scions does he already have?

Harker is cheaper than Commissar Yarrick and gives a reroll 1s to hit effect, but only works if you are using the CATACHAN keyword.

Id use harker. But I painted 50 cadians in the quintessential cadian theme and I can't bring myself to say "These obviously cadian tanks and infantry are actually catachan."

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Id use harker. But I painted 50 cadians in the quintessential cadian theme and I can't bring myself to say "These obviously cadian tanks and infantry are actually catachan."

Catachans are sneaky like that!

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Id use harker. But I painted 50 cadians in the quintessential cadian theme and I can't bring myself to say "These obviously cadian tanks and infantry are actually catachan."

See, you're going the wrong direction with this. I gave Harker a Cadian helmet and shoulder pad. He is now Sgt Barker.

It should be noted that Yarrick's buff boosts things like auxilia and scions (think more Taurox Primes than the Scions themselves) since theyre astra militarum too whereas harker cant. He is also the only way to make Pask reroll 1's best as I can tell. I'm seriously considering taking both to make the entire gunline reroll 1's.

RogueApiary wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Id use harker. But I painted 50 cadians in the quintessential cadian theme and I can't bring myself to say "These obviously cadian tanks and infantry are actually catachan."

See, you're going the wrong direction with this. I gave Harker a Cadian helmet and shoulder pad. He is now Sgt Barker.

It should be noted that Yarrick's buff boosts things like auxilia and scions (think more Taurox Primes than the Scions themselves) since theyre astra militarum too whereas harker cant. He is also the only way to make Pask reroll 1's best as I can tell. I'm seriously considering taking both to make the entire gunline reroll 1's.

Not a bad idea!

RogueApiary wrote:

 rhinoceraids wrote:
Id use harker. But I painted 50 cadians in the quintessential cadian theme and I can't bring myself to say "These obviously cadian tanks and infantry are actually catachan."

See, you're going the wrong direction with this. I gave Harker a Cadian helmet and shoulder pad. He is now Sgt Barker.

It should be noted that Yarrick's buff boosts things like auxilia and scions (think more Taurox Primes than the Scions themselves) since theyre astra militarum too whereas harker cant. He is also the only way to make Pask reroll 1's best as I can tell. I'm seriously considering taking both to make the entire gunline reroll 1's.

Yeah, Yarrick really wants to be up front and center. He's awesome, but you pay for it. 130 points is a whole unit of Bullgrynsfor example. I'd want to stick him next to at least two squads of either kitted out veterans or scions, with some leman russes and heavy weapon squads behind to try and make use of him. That's a hell of a base of fire, but its going to eat a lot of points, and attract a lot of attention.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Wait, don't you reroll THEN apply modifiers?

Indeed you do, the late hour was playing bad games with my mind,

 argonak wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Asking for a friend, but which do you guys believe would add more impact to a list, in a vacuum, all else being equal...

1. 1 Tempestor Prime with a Plasma Scion Command Squad

or

2. Taking Yarrick to hang out in back and give his re-roll 1's to a group of three Earth-Shakers, and three Quad Heavy Mortars?

Yarrick is too big of an investment just for rerolling 1s to hit. Take Harker instead. Yarrick does so much more, and you pay for it. That saves you 80 points.

Who is Harker? Maybe we're being dense, but we can't find him in either the Index or the FW Index.

EDIT: NVM. We thought you were talking about HQs. Found him in the Elites. Thanks!

I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

single sentinels works. I just hate taking them like that. Seems like easy kill points.

Rather bring them in 2's.

Tarous with twin lascannons works too

Requizen wrote:
I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

I've been running 3 squads of 5 Rough Riders to decent effect. They're pretty fun.

Requizen wrote:
I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

Three Scout Sentinels should do the trick. Weapon choice is up to you. They're cheap units to either tie up/distract, to grab objectives, or to plink away at an enemy's forces if they ignore them. I have a couple with Hunter Killers and Missile Launchers and they're okay I guess. I hear heavy flamer rushers are pretty decent but I haven't tried them yet.

Requizen wrote:
I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

3 multilaser sentinels are hard to beat if you are looking to save points. Scout them ahead to deny deepstrike zones. Don't worry about them dying.

Roughriders aren't bad for only a little more points.

CplPunishment wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

3 multilaser sentinels are hard to beat if you are looking to save points. Scout them ahead to deny deepstrike zones. Don't worry about them dying.

Why Multilasers?

If nothing else, Heavy Bolters are cheaper and better.

 vipoid wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

3 multilaser sentinels are hard to beat if you are looking to save points. Scout them ahead to deny deepstrike zones. Don't worry about them dying.

Why Multilasers?

If nothing else, Heavy Bolters are cheaper and better.

Heavy bolters aren't available for sentinels, but autocannons are if you want to be annoying at any range.

How points efficient are Baneblades these days?

Captyn_Bob wrote:
How points efficient are Baneblades these days?

It varies based on which specific target you're talking about and which specific variant you're talking about, but as a general rule they are considerably better than their 7th edition couterparts point-for-point. They were awful in 7th though so I would conclude with merely 'adequate'.

There are a handful that are generally regarded as excellent. People talk highly about the Shadowsword. I personally love the Stormlord.

The actual Baneblade itself does not impress me much. I guess the main Baneblade cannon does a reasonable amount of damage, but you're paying a lot because of the demolisher cannon which isn't bringing a whole lot to the party nowadays.

 daedalus wrote:
There are a handful that are generally regarded as excellent. People talk highly about the Shadowsword. I personally love the Stormlord.

The actual Baneblade itself does not impress me much. I guess the main Baneblade cannon does a reasonable amount of damage, but you're paying a lot because of the demolisher cannon which isn't bringing a whole lot to the party nowadays.

This is true, though I have a similar opinion of the Shadowsword. Everyone raves about it until they play my Foot SOB, at which point it's essentially just a really expensive Leman Russ. I actually think the regular Baneblade is better than the Shadowsword against most targets except the Shadowsword's preferred targets, though you do have to include the math for the Demolisher Cannon which means you have to be within 24".

That said, Baneblades don't nearly mind being within 24" as much as they used to. Being in melee with a horde of small units that completely encircle it is it's preferred lifestyle if it's sitting with the objective under the center of it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
There are a handful that are generally regarded as excellent. People talk highly about the Shadowsword. I personally love the Stormlord.

The actual Baneblade itself does not impress me much. I guess the main Baneblade cannon does a reasonable amount of damage, but you're paying a lot because of the demolisher cannon which isn't bringing a whole lot to the party nowadays.

This is true, though I have a similar opinion of the Shadowsword. Everyone raves about it until they play my Foot SOB, at which point it's essentially just a really expensive Leman Russ. I actually think the regular Baneblade is better than the Shadowsword against most targets except the Shadowsword's preferred targets, though you do have to include the math for the Demolisher Cannon which means you have to be within 24".

That said, Baneblades don't nearly mind being within 24" as much as they used to. Being in melee with a horde of small units that completely encircle it is it's preferred lifestyle if it's sitting with the objective under the center of it.

A pretty good summary, but the Shadowsword is worth it in high-point games where your opponent is liable to take something big.

CplPunishment wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
There are a handful that are generally regarded as excellent. People talk highly about the Shadowsword. I personally love the Stormlord.

The actual Baneblade itself does not impress me much. I guess the main Baneblade cannon does a reasonable amount of damage, but you're paying a lot because of the demolisher cannon which isn't bringing a whole lot to the party nowadays.

This is true, though I have a similar opinion of the Shadowsword. Everyone raves about it until they play my Foot SOB, at which point it's essentially just a really expensive Leman Russ. I actually think the regular Baneblade is better than the Shadowsword against most targets except the Shadowsword's preferred targets, though you do have to include the math for the Demolisher Cannon which means you have to be within 24".

That said, Baneblades don't nearly mind being within 24" as much as they used to. Being in melee with a horde of small units that completely encircle it is it's preferred lifestyle if it's sitting with the objective under the center of it.

A pretty good summary, but the Shadowsword is worth it in high-point games where your opponent is liable to take something big.

I mean I can play my foot SOB up to 2500 and have only 1 Immolator :3

Cheers guys.

So my heretic Banblade might get some play

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
There are a handful that are generally regarded as excellent. People talk highly about the Shadowsword. I personally love the Stormlord.

The actual Baneblade itself does not impress me much. I guess the main Baneblade cannon does a reasonable amount of damage, but you're paying a lot because of the demolisher cannon which isn't bringing a whole lot to the party nowadays.

This is true, though I have a similar opinion of the Shadowsword. Everyone raves about it until they play my Foot SOB, at which point it's essentially just a really expensive Leman Russ. I actually think the regular Baneblade is better than the Shadowsword against most targets except the Shadowsword's preferred targets, though you do have to include the math for the Demolisher Cannon which means you have to be within 24".

That said, Baneblades don't nearly mind being within 24" as much as they used to. Being in melee with a horde of small units that completely encircle it is it's preferred lifestyle if it's sitting with the objective under the center of it.

A pretty good summary, but the Shadowsword is worth it in high-point games where your opponent is liable to take something big.

I mean I can play my foot SOB up to 2500 and have only 1 Immolator :3

Fair enough, but how likely is somebody likely to come across somebody with a force comparable to yours? It is far more likely you will run across at least one other titanic unit in a game over 2000 points.

I've played maybe one game in which there weren't 4+ vehicles. Might be my meta.

Generally theres been a healthy mix.

It all comes down to local meta. If people like Titans, Knights and Superheavies, T10 fortresses and giant monsters, bring that Shadowsword! You probably won't need it under 2k points (then again...), but you will be glad you brought it in bigger games.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 argonak wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Asking for a friend, but which do you guys believe would add more impact to a list, in a vacuum, all else being equal...

1. 1 Tempestor Prime with a Plasma Scion Command Squad

or

2. Taking Yarrick to hang out in back and give his re-roll 1's to a group of three Earth-Shakers, and three Quad Heavy Mortars?

Yarrick is too big of an investment just for rerolling 1s to hit. Take Harker instead. Yarrick does so much more, and you pay for it. That saves you 80 points.

Who is Harker? Maybe we're being dense, but we can't find him in either the Index or the FW Index.

EDIT: NVM. We thought you were talking about HQs. Found him in the Elites. Thanks!

As he's actually in the Catachan section of the book, I'm curious as to how you found him in the Elites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

3 multilaser sentinels are hard to beat if you are looking to save points. Scout them ahead to deny deepstrike zones. Don't worry about them dying.

Why Multilasers?

If nothing else, Heavy Bolters are cheaper and better.

If they could take them, they'd probably be a great choice. Mutlilaser needs to be changed to assault 3 instead of heavy 3. Or maybe rapid fire 2. Right now they're just terrible.

So for now I'm on the side that says either lascannons or heavy flamers. Autocannons aren't cheap enough to bother with, missile launchers are lame, and multilasers are just terrible.

CplPunishment wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Asking for a friend, but which do you guys believe would add more impact to a list, in a vacuum, all else being equal...

1. 1 Tempestor Prime with a Plasma Scion Command Squad

or

2. Taking Yarrick to hang out in back and give his re-roll 1's to a group of three Earth-Shakers, and three Quad Heavy Mortars?

We'd have to see the rest of his list to see what needs beefing. It sounds like he's got a decent Artillery section, but how many Counter-attack/Objective-grabbing units like scions does he already have?

Harker is cheaper than Commissar Yarrick and gives a reroll 1s to hit effect, but only works if you are using the CATACHAN keyword.

Yarrick is not to be underestimated though...but he really needs to be in combat. I've had him savage Celestine and a pile of Deathcults quite badly with his D3 damage and constant revivals. My opponent and I were shocked that old man Yarrick just kept getting back up and killing more. With a command point re-roll he is extremely survivable and with an Astropath to buff he has a 3++. If you want re-rolls of one for Artillery use Harker for sure because your Artillery is unlikely to see combat. However if you want re-rolls for troops who will likely see close combat I would definitely take Yarrick + Astropath.

 argonak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

3 multilaser sentinels are hard to beat if you are looking to save points. Scout them ahead to deny deepstrike zones. Don't worry about them dying.

Why Multilasers?

If nothing else, Heavy Bolters are cheaper and better.

If they could take them, they'd probably be a great choice. Mutlilaser needs to be changed to assault 3 instead of heavy 3. Or maybe rapid fire 2. Right now they're just terrible.

So for now I'm on the side that says either lascannons or heavy flamers. Autocannons aren't cheap enough to bother with, missile launchers are lame, and multilasers are just terrible.

You are talking about investing 51-60 points worth of weapons into 3 T5 walkers with 4+ saves. The multilaser is the optimal choice because it saves points that are better used elsewhere. The whole point of a multilaser sentinel is a cheap FA unit to fill out a brigade and get 9CP. Any effect it has on the tabletop beyond its scout move is incidental--a cherry on top.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Asking for a friend, but which do you guys believe would add more impact to a list, in a vacuum, all else being equal...

1. 1 Tempestor Prime with a Plasma Scion Command Squad

or

2. Taking Yarrick to hang out in back and give his re-roll 1's to a group of three Earth-Shakers, and three Quad Heavy Mortars?

We'd have to see the rest of his list to see what needs beefing. It sounds like he's got a decent Artillery section, but how many Counter-attack/Objective-grabbing units like scions does he already have?

Harker is cheaper than Commissar Yarrick and gives a reroll 1s to hit effect, but only works if you are using the CATACHAN keyword.

Yarrick is not to be underestimated though...but he really needs to be in combat. I've had him savage Celestine and a pile of Deathcults quite badly with his D3 damage and constant revivals. My opponent and I were shocked that old man Yarrick just kept getting back up and killing more. With a command point re-roll he is extremely survivable and with an Astropath to buff he has a 3++. If you want re-rolls of one for Artillery use Harker for sure because your Artillery is unlikely to see combat. However if you want re-rolls for troops who will likely see close combat I would definitely take Yarrick + Astropath.

I need to buy Yarrick and a couple astropaths so they can roll around with Straken and a Ministorum Priest.

CplPunishment wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

3 multilaser sentinels are hard to beat if you are looking to save points. Scout them ahead to deny deepstrike zones. Don't worry about them dying.

Why Multilasers?

If nothing else, Heavy Bolters are cheaper and better.

If they could take them, they'd probably be a great choice. Mutlilaser needs to be changed to assault 3 instead of heavy 3. Or maybe rapid fire 2. Right now they're just terrible.

So for now I'm on the side that says either lascannons or heavy flamers. Autocannons aren't cheap enough to bother with, missile launchers are lame, and multilasers are just terrible.

You are talking about investing 51-60 points worth of weapons into 3 T5 walkers with 4+ saves. The multilaser is the optimal choice because it saves points that are better used elsewhere. The whole point of a multilaser sentinel is a cheap FA unit to fill out a brigade and get 9CP. Any effect it has on the tabletop beyond its scout move is incidental--a cherry on top.

No, I'm talking about 7 to 10 per sentinel, because you're required to pay at least 10 just to get out the door. I don't mind paying 21 to 30 points on weapons that might actually do something rather than the multilaser which is rarely going to do anything. 6 S no AP D1 just doesn't work for me. Marines just laugh it off.

Each scout sentinel is T5, 6 wounds, with a 4+ save, that's decently tough. They don't lose anything from damage either. They seem to me a decent heavy weapon platform, especially if you can get them into some kind of cover with your scout move. I agree their main function is area denial, but if that's all you're doing with them, they're a pretty big point sink just for that. In my experience in 8th, heavy flamer has done ok work because my opponent usually advances into range anyway, if not charging the sentinel itself. So a sentinel is reasonably likely to get two shots off. Sure sometimes he just shoots it dead, but if he wasn't shooting the sentinel he'd be shooting something else. Lascannons are more impressive or embarrassing whiffs, but they hit so hard its almost always worth it when they do hit. One Armored Sentinel nailed a Daemon Prince between the eyes for me a couple weeks ago.

They're not game winners, but I think a little bit of investment in them can pay off. I consider everything in my army expendable, and just try to make what is alive on the table do work. Having units that I know won't do anything but stand there just isn't very appealing to me.

 argonak wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

CplPunishment wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I want to try for a Brigade, what are the best FA choices to fill those out? Minimum with Sentinels or go for something else?

3 multilaser sentinels are hard to beat if you are looking to save points. Scout them ahead to deny deepstrike zones. Don't worry about them dying.

Why Multilasers?

If nothing else, Heavy Bolters are cheaper and better.

If they could take them, they'd probably be a great choice. Mutlilaser needs to be changed to assault 3 instead of heavy 3. Or maybe rapid fire 2. Right now they're just terrible.

So for now I'm on the side that says either lascannons or heavy flamers. Autocannons aren't cheap enough to bother with, missile launchers are lame, and multilasers are just terrible.

You are talking about investing 51-60 points worth of weapons into 3 T5 walkers with 4+ saves. The multilaser is the optimal choice because it saves points that are better used elsewhere. The whole point of a multilaser sentinel is a cheap FA unit to fill out a brigade and get 9CP. Any effect it has on the tabletop beyond its scout move is incidental--a cherry on top.

No, I'm talking about 7 to 10 per sentinel, because you're required to pay at least 10 just to get out the door. I don't mind paying 21 to 30 points on weapons that might actually do something rather than the multilaser which is rarely going to do anything. 6 S no AP D1 just doesn't work for me. Marines just laugh it off.

Each scout sentinel is T5, 6 wounds, with a 4+ save, that's decently tough. They don't lose anything from damage either. They seem to me a decent heavy weapon platform, especially if you can get them into some kind of cover with your scout move. I agree their main function is area denial, but if that's all you're doing with them, they're a pretty big point sink just for that. In my experience in 8th, heavy flamer has done ok work because my opponent usually advances into range anyway, if not charging the sentinel itself. So a sentinel is reasonably likely to get two shots off. Sure sometimes he just shoots it dead, but if he wasn't shooting the sentinel he'd be shooting something else. Lascannons are more impressive or embarrassing whiffs, but they hit so hard its almost always worth it when they do hit. One Armored Sentinel nailed a Daemon Prince between the eyes for me a couple weeks ago.

They're not game winners, but I think a little bit of investment in them can pay off. I consider everything in my army expendable, and just try to make what is alive on the table do work. Having units that I know won't do anything but stand there just isn't very appealing to me.

The Flamer doesn't sound half bad, now that you mention it. The Lascannon is hilariously unreliable like you said. In my experience though, Multilasers are fine, if overpriced. They aren't amazing by any standards, but are acceptable if those 21-30 extra points are better used elsewhere (that's 3-4 plasma guns for perspective).

Sentinels. Bring flamers or powerlifters (If you want things for the heavy support slot).

Watch them scount 9. Move 9. Then charge somebodies tank.

CplPunishment wrote:


The Flamer doesn't sound half bad, now that you mention it. The Lascannon is hilariously unreliable like you said. In my experience though, Multilasers are fine, if overpriced. They aren't amazing by any standards, but are acceptable if those 21-30 extra points are better used elsewhere (that's 3-4 plasma guns for perspective).

I also usually just throw a hunter killer missile on there too. They're only 5 points and as long as the sentinel survies one turn, you'll get your points back. And a krak missile can kill a lot more than 5 points worth!

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

Yarrick is not to be underestimated though...but he really needs to be in combat. I've had him savage Celestine and a pile of Deathcults quite badly with his D3 damage and constant revivals. My opponent and I were shocked that old man Yarrick just kept getting back up and killing more. With a command point re-roll he is extremely survivable and with an Astropath to buff he has a 3++. If you want re-rolls of one for Artillery use Harker for sure because your Artillery is unlikely to see combat. However if you want re-rolls for troops who will likely see close combat I would definitely take Yarrick + Astropath.

Regarding Yarrick, how do you play his Iron Will ability?

If he takes 3 damage from a Lascannon and only has 1 wound left, do you need to roll Iron Will 3 times or just once?

 vipoid wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

Yarrick is not to be underestimated though...but he really needs to be in combat. I've had him savage Celestine and a pile of Deathcults quite badly with his D3 damage and constant revivals. My opponent and I were shocked that old man Yarrick just kept getting back up and killing more. With a command point re-roll he is extremely survivable and with an Astropath to buff he has a 3++. If you want re-rolls of one for Artillery use Harker for sure because your Artillery is unlikely to see combat. However if you want re-rolls for troops who will likely see close combat I would definitely take Yarrick + Astropath.

Regarding Yarrick, how do you play his Iron Will ability?

If he takes 3 damage from a Lascannon and only has 1 wound left, do you need to roll Iron Will 3 times or just once?

Just to add to this. When you take multiple wounds, do those wounds spill over when he loses his last wound or do they disappear?

Say he takes 4 wounds from some marine fire, but he loses his last wound on the 1st shot, do you have to roll Iron Will for the other 3 wounds after saving the first?

Since we're asking, what about Mortal Wounds?

If Yarrick was on his last wound and took 3 Mortal Wounds, would the remaining 2 spill over to the rest of his squad (after which he'd make his Iron Will roll), or would he have to roll Iron Will for each Mortal Wound and only if he died would they spill over to his squad?

1. Yarrick would roll it each time he loses his last wound. Think of it as FNP 3+ against his last wound. So Yarrick has 2 wounds left and fails a save vs a krak Missile. D6 damage. Opponent rolls a 4. Yarrick loses one wound, then his last wound. Rolls a 3+, makes it. The next wound then goes to him. Rolls a 3+ and makes it again. Final wound is allocated, he rolls a 3+ and fails it, and dies. You could easily know that he will have to roll 3 dice to survive and roll all 3 at the same time.

2. Yarrick has no squad so if he takes multiple mortal wounds they will all go on him.

 jifel wrote:
1. Yarrick would roll it each time he loses his last wound. Think of it as FNP 3+ against his last wound. So Yarrick has 2 wounds left and fails a save vs a krak Missile. D6 damage. Opponent rolls a 4. Yarrick loses one wound, then his last wound. Rolls a 3+, makes it. The next wound then goes to him. Rolls a 3+ and makes it again. Final wound is allocated, he rolls a 3+ and fails it, and dies. You could easily know that he will have to roll 3 dice to survive and roll all 3 at the same time.

2. Yarrick has no squad so if he takes multiple mortal wounds they will all go on him.

So if he's also my warlord, would I be rolling for 6's to ignore the damage after failing the 3+ or before rolling the 3+?

So the wound pool on him doesn't go away even though he technically loses his last wound before getting it back?

Yes he could also get a 6+ on those lost wounds. I believe you would roll a 6+ then a 3+. And you only stop allocating wounds to a model when it is removed as a casualty. If Yarrick manages to last longer than expected you just keep allocating wounds to him.

I think it needs to be FAQd. It could easily go either way! I don't think they updated the rules for him with weapons capable of dealing D6 damage in mind!

Fully agree it's not clear and I'd love to see an FAQ on it.

It's just that the way they worded it it sounds like he does lose his last wound, but then gets a chance to bring it back.

Reading through more of the FW stuff, can anyone explain why the Stygies Thunderer is so expensive?

The old version was significantly cheaper than the stock LR Demolisher because you were sacrificing the turret and sponson options for a hull mounted demolisher with limited firing car. Now it's more expensive than a stock LR Demolisher other than 1 additional wound.

Scratching my head on this one...

Haha FW doesn't always make sense.

I wish all these other threads hating on Scions or conscripts were instead bashing on Bullgryn. Lol. I've loved Ogryns since I first started playing in 3rd edition.

Sad that for 5 decked out Wulfen you can get 6 Bullgryn that would just get absolutely demolished by them.

I wonder how Bullgryn vs assault termies would go? I'm betting it would come down to who gets to go first ...

 More Dakka wrote:
Reading through more of the FW stuff, can anyone explain why the Stygies Thunderer is so expensive?

The old version was significantly cheaper than the stock LR Demolisher because you were sacrificing the turret and sponson options for a hull mounted demolisher with limited firing car. Now it's more expensive than a stock LR Demolisher other than 1 additional wound.

Scratching my head on this one...

I'm more concerned with why the Demolisher Cannon itself is so bad.

Haha right? Might as well just take 1 demo charge!

 More Dakka wrote:
Reading through more of the FW stuff, can anyone explain why the Stygies Thunderer is so expensive?

The old version was significantly cheaper than the stock LR Demolisher because you were sacrificing the turret and sponson options for a hull mounted demolisher with limited firing car. Now it's more expensive than a stock LR Demolisher other than 1 additional wound.

Scratching my head on this one...

Likely have intended for the cost to be with the Demolisher included. The Stygies Destroyer costs 170 with its weapon, which is very comparable to a Demolisher cannon in power, included.

About Yarrick: I played his special rule similar to how it was played last edition. He "dies"/loses last wound, wound poolis cleared, he makes 1 roll to see if he gets back up. If he gets back up he can he attached again by another target in the same phase but any overkill wounds from the target that killed him are lost. If they meant for the wound pool not to clear they just would have worded it like a 3+FNP.

That's how I've been playing him

What do you guys think of a 'budget' super-heavy in the form of a Stormsword with 4x Lascannon/Twin Heavy Bolter Sponsons?

Personally I think it is a good balance between a high priority target without putting too many eggs in one basket. It is also quite versatile in it's killing power.
And while the Heavy Flamer sponsons might be more tempting, the enemy will likely try to charge at 9" away from it to avoid the overwatch. Meanwhile, 9x heavy bolters in overwatch will still hurt quite a bit.

Doctoralex wrote:
What do you guys think of a 'budget' super-heavy in the form of a Stormsword with 4x Lascannon/Twin Heavy Bolter Sponsons?

Personally I think it is a good balance between a high priority target without putting too many eggs in one basket. It is also quite versatile in it's killing power.
And while the Heavy Flamer sponsons might be more tempting, the enemy will likely try to charge at 9" away from it to avoid the overwatch. Meanwhile, 9x heavy bolters in overwatch will still hurt quite a bit.

I have not been impressed fighting against superheavy tanks so far. Once they go down a wound profile, which is only a tiny bit harder than killing a single leman russ, they become more or less irrelevant as they must stand still to shoot on 5's or move and hit on 6's. Most alpha strikes can easily pull that off. If the get it down to 6 wounds it may as well be dead because it can't move and hits on 6's.

Also, nobody with any sense will ever charge a baneblade hull unless it's with something that wouldn't care about the overwatch to begin with, like Magnus or a Knight.

Could work it like that. Toss the astropath to give it a 2+. Just run it down the middle of somewhere and just wreck face.

Would you see it at top tables? Nope! But who cares! W

Doctoralex wrote:
What do you guys think of a 'budget' super-heavy in the form of a Stormsword with 4x Lascannon/Twin Heavy Bolter Sponsons?

Personally I think it is a good balance between a high priority target without putting too many eggs in one basket. It is also quite versatile in it's killing power.
And while the Heavy Flamer sponsons might be more tempting, the enemy will likely try to charge at 9" away from it to avoid the overwatch. Meanwhile, 9x heavy bolters in overwatch will still hurt quite a bit.

Mostly don't like it, because as with most superheavy tanks the IG has, it's not flexible. You get 4-5 shots most of the time, and half of those will hit if you're stationary and above 50% wounds. So yay, 2-3 hits from a 500+ point tank's main gun? You won't threaten normal infantry, you can hurt elite infantry (although those are still quite inefficient targets), so larger baddies are probably the best target. The Shadowsword is much better in these cases because of S16, AP-5 and 2d6 damage.

The problem I have with most of them is that there are better choices. If I want a superheavy that deals with vehicles, I take the Shadowsword because it's by far the best, and because a maximum of 40 points difference is not enough to dissuade me price wise. If I want to deal with lighter infantry, the Stormlord could be attractive because it has a lot of shots (or the Macharius Vulcan). I'd maybe take the Baneblade or Hellhammer if I wanted some weird jack of all trades, but probably not.

Anyone else here find vox Casters to be a waste of points? I have yet to use them in a single game of 8th, whereas they used to be a must-have. It would cost 30pts to load up six infantry quads. That's the price of another Company Commander. I would rather have the two extra orders so that every squad can receive an order per turn. Currently I take 4 Company commanders and sit each one within barking range of 2-3 squads.

So, with this in mind, have you found them to be useful?
How many points do you think they are actually worth?
Do you think their effect should change?

They're worthless now. Maybe if they extended the range to unlimited, (highly unlikely) they might be worth 5 points.

I find orders most useful near my heavy weapons squads since I park Harker by them to reroll 1s to hit and use orders to reroll 1s to wound. They can't take voxes so even less reason for them to cost 5 points.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
They're worthless now. Maybe if they extended the range to unlimited, (highly unlikely) they might be worth 5 points.

I'd still never take them. For the points I'd spend on them I could just buy another Company Commander or two to accompany the units farthest from my normal commanders.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
They're worthless now. Maybe if they extended the range to unlimited, (highly unlikely) they might be worth 5 points.

Unlimited range might make me change my mind. But even then, 5 points adds up over multiple squads. Especially if you don't use conscripts. It might be a fair trade-off.
As they are, they are worth 1-2 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
They're worthless now. Maybe if they extended the range to unlimited, (highly unlikely) they might be worth 5 points.

I'd still never take them. For the points I'd spend on them I could just buy another Company Commander or two to accompany the units farthest from my normal commanders.

1-2 points and unlimited range and I might consider them.

If they lifted the requirement for a Vox Caster to be on the receiving end of the order, and simply let an officer standing within 3" of a Vox Caster give orders up to 18" I would use them, but having to have one on the receiving end is just nonsensical and makes them too pricey. Look at the design of a Vox Caster, with the big side mounted speaker. A Vox Caster (i.e voice caster/thrower) isn't a radio transmitter/receiver it's like a big man mounted megaphone, why would there have to be one on the other end for it to work?

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
If they lifted the requirement for a Vox Caster to be on the receiving end of the order, and simply let an officer standing within 3" of a Vox Caster give orders up to 18" I would use them, but having to have one on the receiving end is just nonsensical and makes them too pricey. Look at the design of a Vox Caster, with the big side mounted speaker. A Vox Caster (i.e voice caster/thrower) isn't a radio transmitter/receiver it's like a big man mounted megaphone, why would there have to be one on the other end for it to work?

At one point (3rd edition) they were known as "comm-links" and did not have a loud-speaker incorporated. Back then they were used to transmit the officer's leadership value to a distant (ie unlimited range!) squad for morale purposes. They still had this mechanic in 4th but had their name changed to "vox-caster". This is when the plastic Cadians arrived with the well-known loud-speaker attached to the device. 5th is when they were repurposed for supporting orders rather than morale checks. This is also when an effective range became a reality for them. Despite this, they were useful for passing LD checks for orders.

All this aside, they are BOTH a Transmitter/receiver and megaphone (on the cadian sculpts anyhow). It makes total sense to have a receiver, because there is no guarantee you will hear that tiny loudspeaker from far away over the din of battle.

All that being said, they are worth no more than 1pt in their current incarnation.

I didn't know the history of them, that leaves them in a bit of a twilight zone like the grenade launcher as though GW just doesn't know what to do with it.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
I didn't know the history of them, that leaves them in a bit of a twilight zone like the grenade launcher as though GW just doesn't know what to do with it.

Still think the solution for the GL is to give it utility rounds. Something like smoke for a friendly infantry unit that hasnt fired yet. Or a flare round for nightfight scenarios. Would probably need a points increase but at least at that point youre getting to make an actual choice between utility and damage.

If I had to change just its stats itd be to making shots 2D3 or 1+D3 on the frag portion so it's not guaranteed to be worse than just having an extra lasgun FRFSRF.

If plasma went up to, say, 12pts then would the grenade launcher see play? I agree the frag rounds seem pretty useless but the Krak rounds might have a place?

 DoomMouse wrote:
If plasma went up to, say, 12pts then would the grenade launcher see play?

No.

Even if you increase its cost, plasma at least has a purpose.

What exactly is the optimum target for a Grenade Launcher? An Ork Nob maybe? Though even then there's a decent chance that you won't roll enough wounds to kill it. And the less said about its secondary attack, the better.

Bear in mind that you take special weapons to either give the squad a chance against harder targets (Plasma or Melta) or else to increase its anti-infantry function (Flamers). Grenade Launchers just don't help with either of these - they lack the strength or AP to be effective against armoured targets or vehicles, and they lack the number of shots to be effective against infantry (even the secondary mode is inferior to a standard lasgun with FRFSRF).

The issue isn.t with plasma - it's with Grenade Launchers being useless weapons with no role or purpose and stats that look like they were determined via a dart-board.

Hello fellow commanders, commissars and psykers! Got a tactical question for you

How do you deal with the fact, that there is now quite a lot units/armies, which can benefit from "-1 to attackers hit rolls"?

Most of the Guard units have 4+ to hit.
If you move with heavy (true for a lot of vehicles), -1 to hit.
If you are damaged, -1 or even -2 to hit.
If your opponent has the right ability/psychic power/stratagem/legion trait/chapter trait/support unit, another -1 to hit.

There is no thing, no ability, no order, no spell, which would give us +1 to hit (i dont play with forge world). So, you can easily end up with your heavy weapon guys and tanks not being mobile and still hit only with a roll of 6 (or not being able to shoot at all...)..

Well, since guard is quite a strong army, how do you usually deal with this problem, commanders?

Are people still using Searchlights now that the FAQ is out that they don't stack and only affect infantry?

People are really underselling the Baneblades in this page.

They are all quite good. I have six companies now of various types.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People are really underselling the Baneblades in this page.

They are all quite good. I have six companies now of various types.

Do your opponents just not bring enough anti armor? Like, I just have not been impressed at all fighting them. Once you do 14 damage to one, it's basically stuck in place. Even before that, moving is a dicey proposition. Further, their huge model size makes maneuvering into position on terrain dense boards even harder.

I'd like to see how they do paired with a salamander command vehicle, but they just seem like paper tigers to me. I'd rather fight a baneblade hull over magnus or a knight any day. Hell id rather fight a baneblade than the yncarne after yesterday's game.

I run three vehicles.

Two move forwards to get into melee, one sits back and covers them without moving. They all concentrate their firepower on one AT threat at a time until it is dead or crippled, then move on.

When the two assault tanks make it to the enemy lines and crash into them, the third tank begins to move up, utilizing the not-inconsiderable mobility of the Baneblade and its ilk to get where it needs to go.

The tendency of players to pack all their AT in a few packages (e.g. 5 marines with 4 lascannons in a devastator squad instead of 20 marines with 4 lascannons in 4 Tac squads, or a Vendetta with six lascannons) means disabling their anti-tank is comparatively easy - usually I will lose/have crippled one vehicle by turn 2 or 3, then their AT is disabled. By the end of the game I usually lose/have crippled another vehicle in the enemy's last stand where they pile everything into a phalanx and goes for it, but by turn 4 my third follow-up vehicle obliterates the straggling survivors of the assault by the first two vehicles.

Last game I had 3 Stormhammers, 6 barebones Scion squads, and 4 HQs for a total of 12 CP at 2k in 13 drops.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I run three vehicles.

Two move forwards to get into melee, one sits back and covers them without moving. They all concentrate their firepower on one AT threat at a time until it is dead or crippled, then move on.

When the two assault tanks make it to the enemy lines and crash into them, the third tank begins to move up, utilizing the not-inconsiderable mobility of the Baneblade and its ilk to get where it needs to go.

The tendency of players to pack all their AT in a few packages (e.g. 5 marines with 4 lascannons in a devastator squad instead of 20 marines with 4 lascannons in 4 Tac squads, or a Vendetta with six lascannons) means disabling their anti-tank is comparatively easy - usually I will lose/have crippled one vehicle by turn 2 or 3, then their AT is disabled. By the end of the game I usually lose/have crippled another vehicle in the enemy's last stand where they pile everything into a phalanx and goes for it, but by turn 4 my third follow-up vehicle obliterates the straggling survivors of the assault by the first two vehicles.

Last game I had 3 Stormhammers, 6 barebones Scion squads, and 4 HQs for a total of 12 CP at 2k in 13 drops.

That explains it, my AT is coming from scions, mixed hwts, company command squads with a single lascannon each, and 2 leman russes. They haven't been able to nullify it all before getting made combat ineffective from damage.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I run three vehicles.

Two move forwards to get into melee, one sits back and covers them without moving. They all concentrate their firepower on one AT threat at a time until it is dead or crippled, then move on.

When the two assault tanks make it to the enemy lines and crash into them, the third tank begins to move up, utilizing the not-inconsiderable mobility of the Baneblade and its ilk to get where it needs to go.

The tendency of players to pack all their AT in a few packages (e.g. 5 marines with 4 lascannons in a devastator squad instead of 20 marines with 4 lascannons in 4 Tac squads, or a Vendetta with six lascannons) means disabling their anti-tank is comparatively easy - usually I will lose/have crippled one vehicle by turn 2 or 3, then their AT is disabled. By the end of the game I usually lose/have crippled another vehicle in the enemy's last stand where they pile everything into a phalanx and goes for it, but by turn 4 my third follow-up vehicle obliterates the straggling survivors of the assault by the first two vehicles.

Last game I had 3 Stormhammers, 6 barebones Scion squads, and 4 HQs for a total of 12 CP at 2k in 13 drops.

That explains it, my AT is coming from scions, mixed hwts, company command squads with a single lascannon each, and 2 leman russes. They haven't been able to nullify it all before getting made combat ineffective from damage.

Then your opponents are bad. Yesterday I played a list that had 5 LRBTs/ basilisks, no wyverns, a HWT squad, six infantry squads with lascannons, and a Vendetta for antitank.

By the end of the game I had one vehicle left with 0 wounds suffered, the other two dead, and most of my scions and 2 HQs left.

The thing I would do against your list is go for melee, including using my smoke generators (since as you rightly point out, Baneblade moving and shooting is meh). We only need 2 turns to get across the table, I can usually go first, so smoke generation for the one turn is all I need before tying a huge amount of stuff up in melee because of the Baneblade's massive footprint and the ability of the covering Baneblade to blow holes in most screens

 Lothar wrote:
Hello fellow commanders, commissars and psykers! Got a tactical question for you

How do you deal with the fact, that there is now quite a lot units/armies, which can benefit from "-1 to attackers hit rolls"?

Most of the Guard units have 4+ to hit.
If you move with heavy (true for a lot of vehicles), -1 to hit.
If you are damaged, -1 or even -2 to hit.
If your opponent has the right ability/psychic power/stratagem/legion trait/chapter trait/support unit, another -1 to hit.

...

Well, since guard is quite a strong army, how do you usually deal with this problem, commanders?

Anything at BS 3+ will do better as the -1 only cuts their firepower by 1/4 rather than 1/3 for BS4+. Vets, tank commanders, pask and scions are good. Re rolling ones is also less effective against -1 to hit targets slightly. the

Also bear in mind that plasma overheats more easily against these guys so it's not the ideal target. (Though plasma is so good for its points that it's not a bad option)

You can often mitigate the BS -1 e.g. by deep striking within 12 inches of a raven guard space marine squad. Plasma scions and rough riders are great if you don't have to overheat.

Much of our fire support is efficient enough just to shoot at them anyway - mortar squads and lascannons are still good even with a damage cut.

 Lothar wrote:
Hello fellow commanders, commissars and psykers! Got a tactical question for you

How do you deal with the fact, that there is now quite a lot units/armies, which can benefit from "-1 to attackers hit rolls"?

Most of the Guard units have 4+ to hit.
If you move with heavy (true for a lot of vehicles), -1 to hit.
If you are damaged, -1 or even -2 to hit.
If your opponent has the right ability/psychic power/stratagem/legion trait/chapter trait/support unit, another -1 to hit.

There is no thing, no ability, no order, no spell, which would give us +1 to hit (i dont play with forge world). So, you can easily end up with your heavy weapon guys and tanks not being mobile and still hit only with a roll of 6 (or not being able to shoot at all...)..

Well, since guard is quite a strong army, how do you usually deal with this problem, commanders?

Cyclops demo vehicles. I run 2.

Heavy Flamers.

Close combat. (Bullgryns, powerlifter sentinels)

Mass shots

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I run three vehicles.

Two move forwards to get into melee, one sits back and covers them without moving. They all concentrate their firepower on one AT threat at a time until it is dead or crippled, then move on.

When the two assault tanks make it to the enemy lines and crash into them, the third tank begins to move up, utilizing the not-inconsiderable mobility of the Baneblade and its ilk to get where it needs to go.

The tendency of players to pack all their AT in a few packages (e.g. 5 marines with 4 lascannons in a devastator squad instead of 20 marines with 4 lascannons in 4 Tac squads, or a Vendetta with six lascannons) means disabling their anti-tank is comparatively easy - usually I will lose/have crippled one vehicle by turn 2 or 3, then their AT is disabled. By the end of the game I usually lose/have crippled another vehicle in the enemy's last stand where they pile everything into a phalanx and goes for it, but by turn 4 my third follow-up vehicle obliterates the straggling survivors of the assault by the first two vehicles.

Last game I had 3 Stormhammers, 6 barebones Scion squads, and 4 HQs for a total of 12 CP at 2k in 13 drops.

That explains it, my AT is coming from scions, mixed hwts, company command squads with a single lascannon each, and 2 leman russes. They haven't been able to nullify it all before getting made combat ineffective from damage.

Then your opponents are bad. Yesterday I played a list that had 5 LRBTs/ basilisks, no wyverns, a HWT squad, six infantry squads with lascannons, and a Vendetta for antitank.

By the end of the game I had one vehicle left with 0 wounds suffered, the other two dead, and most of my scions and 2 HQs left.

The thing I would do against your list is go for melee, including using my smoke generators (since as you rightly point out, Baneblade moving and shooting is meh). We only need 2 turns to get across the table, I can usually go first, so smoke generation for the one turn is all I need before tying a huge amount of stuff up in melee because of the Baneblade's massive footprint and the ability of the covering Baneblade to blow holes in most screens

I have no illusions about the quality of my opponents. I would really like to see those lists played with a better pilot, but to their credit they were targeting everything with a lascannon attached to it. The major differences I see based on what you describe is neither had Scions and neither tried to engage in melee with their baneblades.

Sorry. I'm still not on board with the Baneblade chassis. It's bS mixed with no invulnerable save means I'd rather take a knight over it any day.

In my local meta there is so much AT and maneuverable units, it would be a disaster.

for Baneblades I've personally been fielding the Stormhammer, even sticking lascannons on all the sponsons has it clocking in at 520pts though normally I run it with heavy flamers so its about 60pts cheaper. With the stock lascannon, dual battle cannons and the storhammer cannon (seriously, coaxial to reroll misses, 2d6 pick the highest for shots and reroll damage results of 1) I find it already does stupid amounts of work. Give it a astropath buddy for psychic barrier and it already pretty darn good survivability goes up and even more so with a enginseer along for the ride.

Of course it doesn't just work by itself, I also run HWTs, russes, basilisks, conscripts, and hellhounds to support it and give target priority to any anti-tank. In most games it's made it's points back or better, and comes out relatively unscathed because of the enginseer and no one really wanting to shoot a 26w 2+ behemoth that heals D3 every turn.

just my two cent on baneblades.

Well most people don't have the best FW version of a baneblade to play with ... That variant isn't even CLOSE to how poorly the others perform AND it is way cheaper! I wish I had that thing, haha. I would probably use it.

 Ir0njack wrote:
for Baneblades I've personally been fielding the Stormhammer, even sticking lascannons on all the sponsons has it clocking in at 520pts though normally I run it with heavy flamers so its about 60pts cheaper. With the stock lascannon, dual battle cannons and the storhammer cannon (seriously, coaxial to reroll misses, 2d6 pick the highest for shots and reroll damage results of 1) I find it already does stupid amounts of work. Give it a astropath buddy for psychic barrier and it already pretty darn good survivability goes up and even more so with a enginseer along for the ride.

... I dont quite get how running it with flamers makes it cheaper? Each spnson has a LC *and* twin HF/HB. Taking the flamers makes it more expensive?

The Stormhammer is kitted out differently. Although each heavy flamer is only 3pts cheaper than a las cannon ... so it should only be 18pts cheaper in total.

Ooooh... right. Never mind then. Got mixed up.
(seriously though... whoever thought having that many variants with tiny differences and really similar names was a good idea?)

 Tyr13 wrote:
Ooooh... right. Never mind then. Got mixed up.
(seriously though... whoever thought having that many variants with tiny differences and really similar names was a good idea?)

Yeah, it seems an odd way of doing Baneblades. I'd have preferred to just have one Baneblade entry with all the options. Same issue with the Leman Russ really. Keep it simple please.

Baneblade point 1: you can get a 2+ armour save on it really easily (one psyker), which gives it a 5+ against lascannons, just like a Knight has.

Baneblade point 2: You should absolutely be shooting for melee. Baneblades are better than Knights in melee with hordes. They love melee. Being in melee with the vast majority of stuff in this game is a victory for the Baneblade.

How are baneblade better then knights in Melee? Even vs horde titanic feet gives them 12x str8 attacks at ap-2 d3 at bs3+
Bandeblade is 9x str9 atks at ap-2 d3 at bs4+.

Not to mention it can move over infantry and move and fire hvy weapons without penalty.
I guess if you take flamer sponsons it can be better if the baneblade doesn't move but if I'm stuck in melee w a horde w a knight I just fall back fire my Gatling cannon and dual battle cannon and stubbers and then charge and finish off what's left.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
The Stormhammer is kitted out differently. Although each heavy flamer is only 3pts cheaper than a las cannon ... so it should only be 18pts cheaper in total.

Yup you have the right of it, I'm just extremely poor at math. Still a damned good variant of the baneblade in my experience though. The fact ot looks awesome always helps too, i need to fimish building mine so i can start painting it.

I can honestly say I fully support a fireball baneblade provoking a charge. 8d6 autohitting overwatch is naaaaaasty and they're tanky enough to usually survive until their next shooting phase then flame whatever attacked them again while firing the other big guns at juicier targets.

Even if you can't get that horde to charge it the baneblade idsstill usually able to get into range to flame them worse that a keyboard warrior hopped up on mountain dew.

gungo wrote:
How are baneblade better then knights in Melee? Even vs horde titanic feet gives them 12x str8 attacks at ap-2 d3 at bs3+
Bandeblade is 9x str9 atks at ap-2 d3 at bs4+.

Not to mention it can move over infantry and move and fire hvy weapons without penalty.
I guess if you take flamer sponsons it can be better if the baneblade doesn't move but if I'm stuck in melee w a horde w a knight I just fall back fire my Gatling cannon and dual battle cannon and stubbers and then charge and finish off what's left.

Because they can still shoot. Knights in Melee get 12x battlecannon shots.

Baneblades in melee get 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots plus baneblade cannon shots plus demolisher cannon shots plus heavy bolter/heavy flamer shots plus lascannon shots plus autocannon shots plus heavy stubber shots. Not all of them can be at what it's fighting, but that's why it gets those 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots at that particular target :3.

What's more, it's usually stationary when it's locked up so it gets to shoot them all at full BS.

What's more, enemy units can't shoot at it while it's locked up, so it's immune to the most common enemy AT assets.

It isn't that the baneblade beats a knight in melee. But it is better for a Baneblade to be in melee than a Knight, because it really isn't meaningfully affected at all, except to get 9 more baneblade cannon shots (essentially) and being immune to enemy shooting.

So I'm starting to see a very solid core develop with nearly all of my lists.

3xInfantry SQDs w/Plasma Guns, Las Cannons, SGTs have Boltguns
2-3 Infantry SQDs w/Flamers or Plasmas & Heavy Bolters (front rank)
1-2 Mortar Heavy Weapon Squads

I also like a BN Detachment of Scions w/ 2xTempestor Primes w/Command Rods
2x5 Scion SQDs w/2xMelta Guns
1x5 Scion SQD w/2xPlasma Guns
And 1 Scion Command SQD w/4x Plasmas (of course)

If I take a unit of conscripts I nearly always take an Astropath and keep him close. Otherwise the Astropath is still an autotake, if only to deny powers and prevent Space Marine scouts from getting a 2+ cover save.

What are your combos you guys like to run? I really like Eversor + Rough Riders to ensure at least something gets the charge off, if need be. They are a pretty nice combo. Vindicare + 2x5 Ratlings are pretty solid but thus far haven't been worth their points.


I'm building an Ad Mech Vanguard Detachment consisting of Cawl, 2xKastelans w/Phosphor Blasters, and 3 Dunecrawlers since our AT is garbage.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
So I'm starting to see a very solid core develop with nearly all of my lists.

3xInfantry SQDs w/Plasma Guns, Las Cannons, SGTs have Boltguns
2-3 Infantry SQDs w/Flamers or Plasmas & Heavy Bolters (front rank)
1-2 Mortar Heavy Weapon Squads

I also like a BN Detachment of Scions w/ 2xTempestor Primes w/Command Rods
2x5 Scion SQDs w/2xMelta Guns
1x5 Scion SQD w/2xPlasma Guns
And 1 Scion Command SQD w/4x Plasmas (of course)

If I take a unit of conscripts I nearly always take an Astropath and keep him close. Otherwise the Astropath is still an autotake, if only to deny powers and prevent Space Marine scouts from getting a 2+ cover save.

What are your combos you guys like to run? I really like Eversor + Rough Riders to ensure at least something gets the charge off, if need be. They are a pretty nice combo. Vindicare + 2x5 Ratlings are pretty solid but thus far haven't been worth their points.


I'm building an Ad Mech Vanguard Detachment consisting of Cawl, 2xKastelans w/Phosphor Blasters, and 3 Dunecrawlers since our AT is garbage.

Yeah at 15 points, I find it hard not to attach an astropath to anywhere I'm sticking at least two squads. I've converted several out of a cadian command squad, and just give them a special point job to identify themselves. I wish they didn't have to pay for their stupid staffs, or I'd let them keep them. I used a scion command rod with the skull cut off and a flag pole doodad on it to make a primaris, even though I don't really care to run them.

I've tried to use ratlings several times and every time they've been near useless. But they're so cheap I just keep bringing them anyway.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gungo wrote:
How are baneblade better then knights in Melee? Even vs horde titanic feet gives them 12x str8 attacks at ap-2 d3 at bs3+
Bandeblade is 9x str9 atks at ap-2 d3 at bs4+.

Not to mention it can move over infantry and move and fire hvy weapons without penalty.
I guess if you take flamer sponsons it can be better if the baneblade doesn't move but if I'm stuck in melee w a horde w a knight I just fall back fire my Gatling cannon and dual battle cannon and stubbers and then charge and finish off what's left.

Because they can still shoot. Knights in Melee get 12x battlecannon shots.

Baneblades in melee get 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots plus baneblade cannon shots plus demolisher cannon shots plus heavy bolter/heavy flamer shots plus lascannon shots plus autocannon shots plus heavy stubber shots. Not all of them can be at what it's fighting, but that's why it gets those 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots at that particular target :3.

What's more, it's usually stationary when it's locked up so it gets to shoot them all at full BS.

What's more, enemy units can't shoot at it while it's locked up, so it's immune to the most common enemy AT assets.

It isn't that the baneblade beats a knight in melee. But it is better for a Baneblade to be in melee than a Knight, because it really isn't meaningfully affected at all, except to get 9 more baneblade cannon shots (essentially) and being immune to enemy shooting.

Still not seeing it
The only difference from the knight crusader vs baneblade is the baneblade can fire its wpns while locked in combat but only to units not within 1in and the knight can move and fire at full bs with better accuracy 3+. They both can disengage and fire and recharge. However the knight doesnt need to be stationary. There is no reason not to fall back and shoot and recharge with the knight when it allows you to hit first in combat and move over infantry..
The knight crusader gets 2d6 battle cannon shots and 12x str6 ap-2 2 dam avenger Gatling shots and 2x hvy stubbers and optional carapace wpn. The above knight without the carapace is nearly the same price as a baneblade without sponsons and The knight crusader has a better bs. That 3+ bs and higher volume of shots really has helped me more this edition.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

gungo wrote:
How are baneblade better then knights in Melee? Even vs horde titanic feet gives them 12x str8 attacks at ap-2 d3 at bs3+
Bandeblade is 9x str9 atks at ap-2 d3 at bs4+.

Not to mention it can move over infantry and move and fire hvy weapons without penalty.
I guess if you take flamer sponsons it can be better if the baneblade doesn't move but if I'm stuck in melee w a horde w a knight I just fall back fire my Gatling cannon and dual battle cannon and stubbers and then charge and finish off what's left.

Because they can still shoot. Knights in Melee get 12x battlecannon shots.

Baneblades in melee get 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots plus baneblade cannon shots plus demolisher cannon shots plus heavy bolter/heavy flamer shots plus lascannon shots plus autocannon shots plus heavy stubber shots. Not all of them can be at what it's fighting, but that's why it gets those 9 Str 9 battlecannon shots at that particular target :3.

What's more, it's usually stationary when it's locked up so it gets to shoot them all at full BS.

What's more, enemy units can't shoot at it while it's locked up, so it's immune to the most common enemy AT assets.

It isn't that the baneblade beats a knight in melee. But it is better for a Baneblade to be in melee than a Knight, because it really isn't meaningfully affected at all, except to get 9 more baneblade cannon shots (essentially) and being immune to enemy shooting.

If your opponent wants to fire at it, he will just let the unit fall back.
In CC the baneblade or any variant hit´s only at 5+. If he moves he only hit´s also at 5+.
Effectively the Knight can just fall back, shoot at BS 3+ and charge again and hits first due to being charger.
I would take the Knight Crusader everytime over any super-heavy imperial tank.

As long as it lacks the ability to move and shoot its weapons without penalty, it calls for flamers.
Way overcosted.

There is one very good reason not to fall back: Objectives.

I can't tell you how many games I have won by parking a Baneblade directly over top of an objective and just being stubborn. The vehicle is large enough that the enemy can't get any models within 3", so unless they kill it I can be confident the objective is mine. Knights can't do that.

Furthermore, "they will just fall back to shoot the baneblade" is the point. Charge a Leman Russ! Charge their Ravager... charge anything really. You have enough firepower to blow holes in their screen after a turn or two so charge important stuff. That way, if/when they fall back, they lose a good chunk of firepower. You have a massive footprint, bigger than most units. Get within 1" of as many things as possible! Spin sideways to lockup something like 1/4 to 1/3 of the space on the enemy's back line!

Lastly, I don't really think you guys appreciate how little it matters hitting on 5's rather than 4's. 7 shots with the main gun goes from 3 hits to 2 (incidentally the same number lost going from 3+ to 4+ if you are a Space Marine). The only weapons I worry about moving and shooting are the lascannons, as they are "one-hit-wonder" types. And even then, wit 6 firing, 2 will hit if all 3 vehicles move. And I try to keep one stationary for fire support purposes, so rarely do all three move.

You guys are missing its advantages in melee. It can be protected from all enemy shooting, unless the enemy falls back which is a win in its own way. It can never be stopped from Overwatching just by being locked up. Its close combat profile gives it three extra battlecannon hits per turn, while a Knight has to fall back to participate in the wider battle, and yield ground.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lastly, I don't really think you guys appreciate how little it matters hitting on 5's rather than 4's. 7 shots with the main gun goes from 3 hits to 2 (incidentally the same number lost going from 3+ to 4+ if you are a Space Marine).

If you round the number of lost hits to the nearest integer this is true. More precisely the BS3+ unit loses 1/4 of its hits while the BS4+ loses 1/3 of its hits. In other words this means that out of 12 regular hits 3+ gets 9 and 4+ gets 8. Which is not a big difference, but it's there.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Lastly, I don't really think you guys appreciate how little it matters hitting on 5's rather than 4's. 7 shots with the main gun goes from 3 hits to 2 (incidentally the same number lost going from 3+ to 4+ if you are a Space Marine).

If you round the number of lost hits to the nearest integer this is true. More precisely the BS3+ unit loses 1/4 of its hits while the BS4+ loses 1/3 of its hits. In other words this means that out of 12 regular hits 3+ gets 9 and 4+ gets 8. Which is not a big difference, but it's there.

Yes, though if you scale it up to any reasonable value it is the same number of lost hits on average (because you can't roll a fraction).

Eg 20 shots on a 4+ is 10, on a 5+ it is 7, so 3 lost hits.

20 shots on a 3+ is 13, on a 4+ is 10, so 3 lost hits again.

You don't even have to round for 18:
3+ is 12
4+ is 9 (difference of 3)
5+ is 6 (difference of 3)

So they lose the same number of effective hits no matter what their starting BS was.

Yes, but it matters more for the PROPORTION of the shots fired. If I pay 100pts for a BS4+ unit with 24 S4 shots, I usually expect 12 to hit. When reduced to BS5+ 8 hit. It has lost a third of its value.

If I pay 100pts for a unit with BS 3+ that gets 18 S4 shots, it is expected to hit 12 times (the same damage output in the previous case). But when the BS drops to 4+ it now get 9 hits - it's lost a quarter of its value.

The difference is only very small admittedly, but it shows why you should shoot better BS weapons against fliers + other hard to hit enemies. Orks really lose out to negative BS modifiers. A -1 to hit for an ork BS5+ unit cuts its expected damage dealt by HALF!

 DoomMouse wrote:
Yes, but it matters more for the PROPORTION of the shots fired. If I pay 100pts for a BS4+ unit with 24 S4 shots, I usually expect 12 to hit. When reduced to BS5+ 8 hit. It has lost a third of its value.

If I pay 100pts for a unit with BS 3+ that gets 18 S4 shots, it is expected to hit 12 times (the same damage output in the previous case). But when the BS drops to 4+ it now get 9 hits - it's lost a quarter of its value.

The difference is only very small admittedly, but it shows why you should shoot better BS weapons against fliers + other hard to hit enemies. Orks really lose out to negative BS modifiers. A -1 to hit for an ork BS5+ unit cuts its expected damage dealt by HALF!

Yes but in theory the BS4+ weapon is cheaper than the BS3+ weapon in the first place.

So in a perfect world (which I know GW doesn't make) it is conceivable that the BS4+ weapon is cheaper by more than the mere 33% than the BS3+ weapon because of this effect. So for example an Imperial Guard plasma gun is 7 points, and a Space Marine plasma gun is 33% more effective without modifiers so it should cost only 33% more (2-3 points), right? Well, wrong, because it's a bit more than 33% more effective due to the phenomenon you mentioned, and as such, it's damn near twice as expensive.

Essentially what I am saying is that once you say "effectiveness per point" you're opening up a whole 'nother can of worms.

So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

You are already calculating an average with the xd6 hits, might as well continue calculating averages without rounding since it is a more accurate representation of what you will get once you roll the dice. Going from 3 hits to 2.25 hits is better than going from 3 hits to 2 hits. It's the same proportional difference as you will get with a higher volume of shots except for a larger deviation per die.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

You are already calculating an average with the xd6 hits, might as well continue calculating averages without rounding since it is a more accurate representation of what you will get once you roll the dice. Going from 3 hits to 2.25 hits is better than going from 3 hits to 2 hits. It's the same proportional difference as you will get with a higher volume of shots except for a larger deviation per die.

Yes, but even at 100 shots, the difference is:

BS3+: 67 hits
BS4+: 50 hits (difference of 17)
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

I can scale it up to a thousand:

BS3+: 667 hits
BS4+: 500 hits (difference of 167)
BS5+: 333 hits (difference of 167)

I could do it for a million too, but the point is that the difference is less than a single hit, even with rounding, no matter what you're scaling to. It's essentially the same. Dice can't roll fractions, so in practical applications in the real world, it's the same, or close enough to be considered equivalent.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

You are already calculating an average with the xd6 hits, might as well continue calculating averages without rounding since it is a more accurate representation of what you will get once you roll the dice. Going from 3 hits to 2.25 hits is better than going from 3 hits to 2 hits. It's the same proportional difference as you will get with a higher volume of shots except for a larger deviation per die.

Yes, but even at 100 shots, the difference is:

BS3+: 67 hits
BS4+: 50 hits (difference of 17)
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

I can scale it up to a thousand:

BS3+: 667 hits
BS4+: 500 hits (difference of 167)
BS5+: 333 hits (difference of 167)

I could do it for a million too, but the point is that the difference is less than a single hit, even with rounding, no matter what you're scaling to. It's essentially the same. Dice can't roll fractions, so in practical applications in the real world, it's the same, or close enough to be considered equivalent.

This is showing the reduction in terms of absolute numbers from a given start point at 3+ to hit, not relative numbers with the same starting point which is what you were referring to earlier when you spoke of 3 hits being reduced by an equal amount both for BS3+ minus 1 to hit and BS4+ minus 1 to hit. If the assumption is that the BS3+ unit and the BS4+ unit get the same amount of hits to begin with, the BS4+ unit will get 8/9 of the hits that the BS3+ unit gets after minus 1 to hit. With a similar illustration as yours:

BS3+: 50 hits
BS4+: 37 hits (difference of 13)

BS4+: 50 hits
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you lose the same number of hits with a -1 modifier whether you are BS3+ or BS4+, so the base BS of the platform is kind of irrelevant (provided it's costed appropriately, which again is a discussion we can have, but is not the same one).

You are already calculating an average with the xd6 hits, might as well continue calculating averages without rounding since it is a more accurate representation of what you will get once you roll the dice. Going from 3 hits to 2.25 hits is better than going from 3 hits to 2 hits. It's the same proportional difference as you will get with a higher volume of shots except for a larger deviation per die.

Yes, but even at 100 shots, the difference is:

BS3+: 67 hits
BS4+: 50 hits (difference of 17)
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

I can scale it up to a thousand:

BS3+: 667 hits
BS4+: 500 hits (difference of 167)
BS5+: 333 hits (difference of 167)

I could do it for a million too, but the point is that the difference is less than a single hit, even with rounding, no matter what you're scaling to. It's essentially the same. Dice can't roll fractions, so in practical applications in the real world, it's the same, or close enough to be considered equivalent.

This is showing the reduction in terms of absolute numbers from a given start point at 3+ to hit, not relative numbers with the same starting point which is what you were referring to earlier when you spoke of 3 hits being reduced by an equal amount both for BS3+ minus 1 to hit and BS4+ minus 1 to hit. If the assumption is that the BS3+ unit and the BS4+ unit get the same amount of hits to begin with, the BS4+ unit will get 8/9 of the hits that the BS3+ unit gets after minus 1 to hit. With a similar illustration as yours:

BS3+: 50 hits
BS4+: 37 hits (difference of 13)

BS4+: 50 hits
BS5+: 33 hits (difference of 17)

Yes but now you are comparing completely different guns - for the BS3+ to get 50 hits, you have to have a gun that fires 75 shots. For the BS4+ to hit 50 times, you have to have a gun that fires 100 shots.

So yes, I admit that if you pay completely different points to purchase completely different weapon systems, then the -1 to hit sucks.

But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

Both are good in their own way.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

It would still lose a relatively larger proportion of the hits in the case where you start off with the same amount of shots, which is still worse. BS3+ loses 25% of the regular hits while BS4+ loses 33% of the regular hits - it doesn't matter what the starting number of hits is because the relative loss is still higher, so unless the pts cost is adjusted to still provide a higher hit/pts for worse BS-models then it is still a problem. Comparing the absolute number of lost hits is irrelevant.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

It would still lose a relatively larger proportion of the hits in the case where you start off with the same amount of shots, which is still worse. BS3+ loses 25% of the regular hits while BS4+ loses 33% of the regular hits - it doesn't matter what the starting number of hits is because the relative loss is still higher, so unless the pts cost is adjusted to still provide a higher hit/pts for worse BS-models then it is still a problem.. Comparing the absolute number of lost hits is irrelevant.

Not really sure why this is relevant / important? It does lose proportionally more hits ... so what? I already said BS4+ weapons are / should be cheaper than BS3+...?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

It would still lose a relatively larger proportion of the hits in the case where you start off with the same amount of shots, which is still worse. BS3+ loses 25% of the regular hits while BS4+ loses 33% of the regular hits - it doesn't matter what the starting number of hits is because the relative loss is still higher, so unless the pts cost is adjusted to still provide a higher hit/pts for worse BS-models then it is still a problem.. Comparing the absolute number of lost hits is irrelevant.

Not really sure why this is relevant / important? It does lose proportionally more hits ... so what? I already said BS4+ weapons are / should be cheaper than BS3+...?

It is relevant because if you get the same hits/pts for both BS3+ and BS4+ then BS4+ will still be impacted more by minus to hit.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But given the same weapon system (i.e., a Demolisher Cannon, Baneblade Cannon, whatever else people think the Baneblade doesn't do well) - the baneblade loses just as many hits if it started at BS3+ then moved as it does if it started at BS4+ and then moved.

Not really sure what your example shows, considering you're comparing two completely different weapons.

It would still lose a relatively larger proportion of the hits in the case where you start off with the same amount of shots, which is still worse. BS3+ loses 25% of the regular hits while BS4+ loses 33% of the regular hits - it doesn't matter what the starting number of hits is because the relative loss is still higher, so unless the pts cost is adjusted to still provide a higher hit/pts for worse BS-models then it is still a problem.. Comparing the absolute number of lost hits is irrelevant.

Not really sure why this is relevant / important? It does lose proportionally more hits ... so what? I already said BS4+ weapons are / should be cheaper than BS3+...?

It is relevant because if you get the same hits/pts for both BS3+ and BS4+ then BS4+ will still be impacted more by minus to hit.

Yes, if you get the same hits/pts. But look at, e.g. the Plasma Gun in Rapid Fire range:

1.3 hits for 13 points (SM plasma gun) = 0.10 pts per hit
1 hits for 7 points (IG plasma gun) = 0.14 pts per hit

It's clear that the hits/pt isn't identical, which tells me that GW is aware of this. Or, if they're not aware of it mathematically, they are at least intuitively.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I already said BS4+ weapons are / should be cheaper than BS3+...?

Yes, but in theory the platforms that are BS3+ are more expensive to counteract this - e.g. tank commanders compared with normal russes. GW hasn't got all their points worked out perfectly anyway, but this is the general trend.

If they're doing their points right, then offensive output should be the same hits/per point invested (all other things being equal).

 DoomMouse wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I already said BS4+ weapons are / should be cheaper than BS3+...?

Yes, but in theory the platforms that are BS3+ are more expensive to counteract this - e.g. tank commanders compared with normal russes. GW hasn't got all their points worked out perfectly anyway, but this is the general trend.

If they're doing their points right, then offensive output should be the same hits/per point invested (all other things being equal).

I think sossen's point is that offensive output should not be the same hits/point because hits/point changes more drastically with penalties applied for models with a worse basic BS.