I'm waiting/hoping for an faq/errata for EW, but putting 10 Sykstalkers in a Dunerider makes getting them within bomb-flyover range super easy, probably more reliable for Sterylizors as well.
Pop 10 Skyraptors in a Dunerider, then when you get them closer you have the option for them to pop out of a transport and soar away if you need them elsewhere tactically. Or if there's a suitably safe target fly-over bombing run, WoM if that's your thing or even the -1 to hit strat. Or just pepper some chaff. Both Raiders and Skyraptors seem like brilliant harassment with a couple of tools to keep your opponent guessing.
given a FB comment i saw, i am guessing that servo skull is a primaris techmarine and not a late admech character.
Could be wrong, but that FB comment rings in my head louder than a siren right now.
Vineheart01 wrote: given a FB comment i saw, i am guessing that servo skull is a primaris techmarine and not a late admech character.
Could be wrong, but that FB comment rings in my head louder than a siren right now.
Even though it's identical to a dominus servo skull? I guess they would be similar but man do we need a fully useful HQ. Marine players don't even need or use Techmarines, except to baby sit artillery lol
I'd be highly suspect of any possible additional Admech, deffo a Primaris TechMarine... or if it's a surprise, it's a surprise IG or Inquisitor guy.
On topic, I've been mulling the Stratoraptor around in my head after seeing the new flyer rules. If there are FAQ points fixes coming (also remembering there are point adjustments for everything coming in 9th so our expensive gunboat might end up being normalized) I kind of feel like the Stratoraptor becomes really flexible and useful. Thoughts?
Yeah but marines past like 10 releases have been stuff they didnt need or even have any right to get, yet got anyway.
They get literally every tactic, i wouldnt be surprised if they get their version of the daemon pact at some point (whatever its called where a character kills a character it rolls 2D6 and something happens)
Projecting pts past ninth is pointless till we know. The strato has the most functional rules. Ergo it is the most likely to be playable but pts make or break it.
Plus we will have less pts overall so the scope for fun options drops
Now I look at it, could be a new Enginseer, looks more like an Enginseer servo skull than a Dominus one.
Not many factions non-character models have servo-skulls modelled with additional aerials and such. I went through the GW store and couldn't find any model other than Enginseer, Cawl, Dominus and one Primaris Captain in Phobos armour with a modelled sero-skull. None on techmarines, apothecaries, chaplains, dreadnaughts, inquisitors, nothing.
That doesn't mean a new model cant have one of course but precedence is set for it to be a tech-adept of some sort. Even a Lord Discordant don't have a servo skull lol
I'd be stoked if they gave us a cheap Skitarii HQ, perhaps with a phosphor blast carbine and a pre game ability to reposition himself and d3 other skitarii infantry units before the game began.
PiñaColada wrote: I'd be stoked if they gave us a cheap Skitarii HQ, perhaps with a phosphor blast carbine and a pre game ability to reposition himself and d3 other skitarii infantry units before the game began.
Nah Id be stoked if they gave us an expensive HQ that is to be feared. a phosphor carbine doesnt really do much
the funny bit about that is all the marine players i know are going "yeah the primaris biker is kinda meh" - 2 of them are big tournament players.
Talk about spoiled children army....
When you have 6-model aggressor squads for 220 points that can put out 140 shots, and they aren't even considered one of the best units in the codex, lots of stuff looks pretty meh.
PiñaColada wrote: I'd be stoked if they gave us a cheap Skitarii HQ, perhaps with a phosphor blast carbine and a pre game ability to reposition himself and d3 other skitarii infantry units before the game began.
Personal wishlisting:
Any Primus or Secutarii Axiarch(would TOTALLY count! they wouldn't have <Forge World> tags, but would still be a Big Deal as a Skitarii HQ) should have some kind of weird, archaic weaponry rather than just a Vanguard weapon.
What we know with regards to the Alpha Primus lore is that:
a) They exhibit traits of the Skitarii 'sect'(for lack of a better term) they were brought up from. Ranger based ones were super paranoid and marksmen with strange tics. Vanguard based ones could not be approached by non-Vanguard or vehicles because they were that dang radioactive and were used for radwar protocols.
b) They're able to operate on their own for lengthy periods of time and can enable Skitarii or Servitors to do the same.
Getting a semi-customizable(ala Marine Lieutenants) unit that can do such would be...interesting.
Hesselhof wrote: For 8th edition, is it clear what counts as aura ability for the uplink stratagem? Could we take out saviour protocols?
And another question, i guess atm and with the magos trait, icarus and cawl are better then neutronlaser?
As far as we can tell, both in RAW and RAI, anything on a data sheet with a "within range" requirement is an aura. This has apparently been backed up by both FLG and NOVA. (People applying a very narrow definition of "aura" as some buff that is applied around a character model is basically basing this on their impression of how auras work from Warcraft, not Warhammer.)
Anyhow, keep in mind that it also shuts down things like TFCs; you can force them to come out of cover by parking nearby. Very low-key OP.
Hesselhof wrote: Ha lol right, TFC must be in range to techmarine XD
i got a failure of thinking lol, k thats cool^^
you can also kill it useng crewed artilery rule. - if the tech marine is within range but the gun isn't . the crewed artillery rule says there must be a there be a gunner within 6" but the aura is blocked from applying to that gunner.
note if you also block the gun itself the rule doesnt apply at all so it stays alive
PiñaColada wrote: I'd be stoked if they gave us a cheap Skitarii HQ, perhaps with a phosphor blast carbine and a pre game ability to reposition himself and d3 other skitarii infantry units before the game began.
Personal wishlisting:
Any Primus or Secutarii Axiarch(would TOTALLY count! they wouldn't have <Forge World> tags, but would still be a Big Deal as a Skitarii HQ) should have some kind of weird, archaic weaponry rather than just a Vanguard weapon.
What we know with regards to the Alpha Primus lore is that:
a) They exhibit traits of the Skitarii 'sect'(for lack of a better term) they were brought up from. Ranger based ones were super paranoid and marksmen with strange tics. Vanguard based ones could not be approached by non-Vanguard or vehicles because they were that dang radioactive and were used for radwar protocols.
b) They're able to operate on their own for lengthy periods of time and can enable Skitarii or Servitors to do the same.
Getting a semi-customizable(ala Marine Lieutenants) unit that can do such would be...interesting.
b) sounds an awful lot like that EW short story where everyone that got too close to the super-special Skitarii vanguard 'melted' but that could also have been the Varlian Device.
Would be nice to be able to 'upgrade' any Alpha or Princeps to have some sort of useful aura for CP. Or maybe even if you take a squad of 10 you can upgrade the Alpha...or just pay points like wargear or something.
Hesselhof wrote: Ha lol right, TFC must be in range to techmarine XD
i got a failure of thinking lol, k thats cool^^
you can also kill it useng crewed artilery rule. - if the tech marine is within range but the gun isn't . the crewed artillery rule says there must be a there be a gunner within 6" but the aura is blocked from applying to that gunner.
note if you also block the gun itself the rule doesnt apply at all so it stays alive
Backwards.
There must be a gunner within 6" of the gun is an aura from the gun, not the gunner. And Operated Artillery os 3" from the gunner.
Also not sure if this it truely an "Aura ability", or if it is more like unit coherency. Both rules also dpuble-speak the interdependence of the models, referencing it backwards at the end of the rule
check the ymdc thread if you want to expand on this but ill summarise its conclusions- yes it is an aura- the cewed artillery aura is from the gun the operated artillery is from the gunner- it either is an aura or it isn't, these are.
the stratagem shuts down auras in the area around the aircraft. NOT the auras projected by models within range of the aircraft.
wholey within auras don't effect models partially overlapping with the strategems aura
not wholey within auras still effect models unless their whole base is covered by the strategem
So if the gun is completely overlapped by the planes aura neither aura effect it and it cant fire but it is not removed
If the gun aura is active (atleast part of its base is not covered by the strategem) but the gunner is wholey within the stratagems range. then the aura doesnt apply in the area around the gunner and when the guns aura can't find it it activates and kills the gun
If the gun is completely covered by the strategem but the gunner is not. the gun is not removed as crewed artillery aura is not in effected but it cant fire because the gunners aura disableing operated artillery cant find the gun
Octovol wrote: Now I look at it, could be a new Enginseer, looks more like an Enginseer servo skull than a Dominus one.
Not many factions non-character models have servo-skulls modelled with additional aerials and such. I went through the GW store and couldn't find any model other than Enginseer, Cawl, Dominus and one Primaris Captain in Phobos armour with a modelled sero-skull. None on techmarines, apothecaries, chaplains, dreadnaughts, inquisitors, nothing.
That doesn't mean a new model cant have one of course but precedence is set for it to be a tech-adept of some sort. Even a Lord Discordant don't have a servo skull lol
Imperial Guard have some in our command squad boxes. I know the stormtroopers have one for a fact and I'm 99% certain Cadian command has one. Also remember the odd servo skull pops up in regular boxes from time to time. I want to say terminators have one for example, been a while since I've seen their sprue.
Technically servo skulls are all over the Imperium. Trying to guess who it is without some sort of icon on the skull would be like us trying to guess a what office someone works at by what their stapler looks like.
Overwatch is a 1cp stratagem now.
That....kinda royally messes with things. And greatly concerns me. Those perks that boost overwatch were never considered amazing in the first place and now theyre even less enticing as they cost cp to actually benefit from.
i'm fine with limiting overwatch to promote melee heavy armies multi-charging instead of daisy-chaining, but did it have to actually cost a cp?
Vineheart01 wrote: Overwatch is a 1cp stratagem now.
That....kinda royally messes with things. And greatly concerns me. Those perks that boost overwatch were never considered amazing in the first place and now theyre even less enticing as they cost cp to actually benefit from.
i'm fine with limiting overwatch to promote melee heavy armies multi-charging instead of daisy-chaining, but did it have to actually cost a cp?
*listens to the chorus of praise to the Omnisiah from all the Fulgurite Electro-Priests.
Vineheart01 wrote: Overwatch is a 1cp stratagem now.
That....kinda royally messes with things. And greatly concerns me. Those perks that boost overwatch were never considered amazing in the first place and now theyre even less enticing as they cost cp to actually benefit from.
i'm fine with limiting overwatch to promote melee heavy armies multi-charging instead of daisy-chaining, but did it have to actually cost a cp?
I'm fine with it costing cp, just all those overwatch on a 5+ abilities need to be improved drastically or they're next to worthless. Especially given infantry in defensible terrain now get to shoot overwatch at 5+ for free.
Yeah, that fresh new Graia canticle is looking a little sad right now. If they changed it so the strat also costs 0CP when that canticle is active then it'd be fine IMO.
They did mention that there will be other ways than the strat to get overwatch. I am hoping that, for example, the Agripinaa Staunch Defenders dogma grants all units overwatch on 5+, not just a bonus to the single unit that pays for overwatch via a strat.
Its not like anyone plays Agripinaa anyway. Its certainly not overpowered.
Similarly, I am hoping that the Cognis Overwatch strategey grants overwatch to the selected unit, instead of having to use another strat on it.
Now would be a great time to reintroduce the Onager vehicle equipment "Mindscanner Probe" as a way for granting Overwatch to nearby friendlies....just saying.
U02dah4 wrote: Agripinaaa dead you need 12CP just for the strat
you get 18 (12 to start a+1/turn). If you seriously want to spend it all on the using the Fresh Converts strat 4 or more times I suppose you could, but that seams ridiculous to me.
Besides, If I am running that many Kataphron breachers I'm running a Data-Horde Forge World with Trans-node power cores. If I am running that many Kataphron Destroyers I am running Mars or Ryza.
They've stated some rules will give it, so it's possible some units may always receive overwatch by rules. So for example I could see Kastelans getting it in protector doctrina since they fire twice and give up movement to do so. It'd seem odd that they're allowed to fire twice but they couldn't fire overwatch. I could also see the cognis rule allowing those weapons to fire overwatch no matter what happens since that's quite literally a weapon where the machine spirit can take over and target by itself.
So probably not the end of the world for admech. I'd think most of our units that could actually make use of overwatch will still get it. Just means stuff like infantry are stuck with melee now.
U02dah4 wrote: check the ymdc thread if you want to expand on this but ill summarise its conclusions- yes it is an aura- the cewed artillery aura is from the gun the operated artillery is from the gunner- it either is an aura or it isn't, these are.
the stratagem shuts down auras in the area around the aircraft. NOT the auras projected by models within range of the aircraft.
wholey within auras don't effect models partially overlapping with the strategems aura
not wholey within auras still effect models unless their whole base is covered by the strategem
So if the gun is completely overlapped by the planes aura neither aura effect it and it cant fire but it is not removed
If the gun aura is active (atleast part of its base is not covered by the strategem) but the gunner is wholey within the stratagems range. then the aura doesnt apply in the area around the gunner and when the guns aura can't find it it activates and kills the gun
If the gun is completely covered by the strategem but the gunner is not. the gun is not removed as crewed artillery aura is not in effected but it cant fire because the gunners aura disableing operated artillery cant find the gun
I am not denying that "crewed artillery" is not an Aura.
I was saying you have which model the Aura exists on incorrect. The TFC is removed if there are no <Techmarine Gunner> units within 6", that means the aura is on the cannon.
You would never have to remove a TFC due to the strat: the Aura Ability removes a gun if there is no gunner nearby(or crew in other units' cases), shutting down the Aura simply removes the requirement to remove the gun.
For Firing the gun, that aura is provided by the gunner/crew; so the strat on just the gun, still allows the gun to fire.
The Strat will not kill Crewed Artillery in any way, and will only stop the guns from firing when affecting gunners/crew.
yes The TFC is removed if there are no <Techmarine Gunner> units within 6",
NO
The stratagem stops the aura functioning within 6" of the flyer
So imagine a situation where the Aura is still running as the gun isn't covered. but the techpriest is completely within 6" of the flyer
The gun isn't covered so its aura is still active consequently The TFC is removed if there are no <Techmarine Gunner> units within 6",
The guns aura apply's however it doesn't look within the area within 6" of the aircraft as the aura is disabled within that range
so the guns aura cant find the techpriest and the gun is removed
again I will note the strategem doesn't stop models projecting auras. It stops the aura's affecting the area within 6" of the aircraft which is what I'm assuming is confusing you
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMoustaffa wrote: They've stated some rules will give it, so it's possible some units may always receive overwatch by rules. So for example I could see Kastelans getting it in protector doctrina since they fire twice and give up movement to do so. It'd seem odd that they're allowed to fire twice but they couldn't fire overwatch. I could also see the cognis rule allowing those weapons to fire overwatch no matter what happens since that's quite literally a weapon where the machine spirit can take over and target by itself.
So probably not the end of the world for admech. I'd think most of our units that could actually make use of overwatch will still get it. Just means stuff like infantry are stuck with melee now.
you can still 1CP them with there volume of firepower it would be worth it
U02dah4 wrote: Agripinaaa dead you need 12CP just for the strat
you get 18 (12 to start a+1/turn). If you seriously want to spend it all on the using the Fresh Converts strat 4 or more times I suppose you could, but that seams ridiculous to me.
Besides, If I am running that many Kataphron breachers I'm running a Data-Horde Forge World with Trans-node power cores. If I am running that many Kataphron Destroyers I am running Mars or Ryza.
I have run Agrippina at a number of events. Fresh converts is what adds value to Agrippina. 4 Times was my average but I had capacity for more and used it sometimes
Why would it not be good to bring back 4-5 breachers a turn for 4 turns? It partially makes up for giveing up stygies durability
The problem is that's not 18 because:
Not all games will go to turn 6,
CP costs are frontloaded (having 18 is completely different to 12+1PT looking at WLtrait strats at the moment but also extra detachments because you probably want a little admech soup supporting your aggripinaa and those will require more CP because virtually everything worth souping has a stratagem cost to use effectively. So the reality is that you probably spend 6ish either pregame or T1
Ok I finally get my 6th bonus CP and can spend 3 CP to bring back my breachers turn 6 (if they're even alive) (which is pretty worthless because you don't get value from it)
And that's before we now have to pay CP to overwatch
yes The TFC is removed if there are no <Techmarine Gunner> units within 6",
NO
The stratagem stops the aura functioning within 6" of the flyer
So imagine a situation where the Aura is still running as the gun isn't covered. but the techpriest is completely within 6" of the flyer
The gun isn't covered so its aura is still active consequently The TFC is removed if there are no <Techmarine Gunner> units within 6",
The guns aura apply's however it doesn't look within the area within 6" of the aircraft as the aura is disabled within that range
so the guns aura cant find the techpriest and the gun is removed
again I will note the strategem doesn't stop models projecting auras. It stops the aura's affecting the area within 6" of the aircraft which is what I'm assuming is confusing you
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrMoustaffa wrote: They've stated some rules will give it, so it's possible some units may always receive overwatch by rules. So for example I could see Kastelans getting it in protector doctrina since they fire twice and give up movement to do so. It'd seem odd that they're allowed to fire twice but they couldn't fire overwatch. I could also see the cognis rule allowing those weapons to fire overwatch no matter what happens since that's quite literally a weapon where the machine spirit can take over and target by itself.
So probably not the end of the world for admech. I'd think most of our units that could actually make use of overwatch will still get it. Just means stuff like infantry are stuck with melee now.
you can still 1CP them with there volume of firepower it would be worth it
U02dah4 wrote: Agripinaaa dead you need 12CP just for the strat
you get 18 (12 to start a+1/turn). If you seriously want to spend it all on the using the Fresh Converts strat 4 or more times I suppose you could, but that seams ridiculous to me.
Besides, If I am running that many Kataphron breachers I'm running a Data-Horde Forge World with Trans-node power cores. If I am running that many Kataphron Destroyers I am running Mars or Ryza.
I have run Agrippina at a number of events. Fresh converts is what adds value to Agrippina. 4 Times was my average but I had capacity for more and used it sometimes
Why would it not be good to bring back 4-5 breachers a turn for 4 turns? It partially makes up for giveing up stygies durability
The problem is that's not 18 because:
Not all games will go to turn 6,
CP costs are frontloaded (having 18 is completely different to 12+1PT looking at WLtrait strats at the moment but also extra detachments because you probably want a little admech soup supporting your aggripinaa and those will require more CP because virtually everything worth souping has a stratagem cost to use effectively. So the reality is that you probably spend 6ish either pregame or T1
Ok I finally get my 6th bonus CP and can spend 3 CP to bring back my breachers turn 6 (if they're even alive) (which is pretty worthless because you don't get value from it)
And that's before we now have to pay CP to overwatch
Except, there is still a techmarine gunner(or whatever crew) within 6" of the active aura that would remove the TFC(or whatever crewed artillery).
Crewed Artillery Aura Ability is a check: is there "X" unit within range? If yes, no effect; if no, remove the crewed artillery gun. The EFCM strat simply inactivates the Aura abilities of enemy units within range(in this case, the ability of the crew to fire the artillery), it does not change, or remove anything else about the units under the effect.
There isn't one within 6" because the portion of the aura in which the which the techmarine gunner is standing has been removed by the strategem
Crew aura is there X unit within the aura answer = NO so remove the crewed artillery gun
The exact wording of is "Until the start of your next turn, enemy models aura abilities have no effect whilst within 6" of that unit."
So the Aura still applies but has no effect within 6" of the aircraft
It is not - models within 6" of this unit have no aura abilities
The exact wording of the thunderfire is
If at any point there are no friendly <chapter> techmarine gunner units within 6" of a thunderfire cannon, that thunderfire cannon is destroyed
So combineing them
If at any point there are no friendly <chapter> techmarine gunner units within 6" of a thunderfire cannon (minus the area of the aura that has no effect (6" of that aircraft)." (, that thunderfire cannon is destroyed
That's how it works - I'm clearly not going to convince you of that so I would advise you consult the existing thread or create a new specific one in YMDC before it comes up in an actual game. Rather than clogging up the admech thread
U02dah4 wrote: There isn't one within 6" because the portion of the aura in which the which the techmarine gunner is standing has been removed by the strategem
Crew aura is there X unit within the aura answer = NO so remove the crewed artillery gun
That's how it works - I'm clearly not going to convince you of that so I would advise you consult the existing thread or create a new specific one in YMDC before it comes up in an actual game. Rather than clogging up the admech thread
But the WHOLE RULE is shut down. So while it doesn't detect a Techmarine Gunner (or whatever crew) within 6", it also doesn't have to remove itself, since that's part of the rule that's shut down.
only the area the aura's effect within 6" of the aircraft
The exact wording of is "Until the start of your next turn, enemy models aura abilities have no effect whilst within 6" of that unit."
It is not - enemy models within 6" of this unit have no aura abilities
only the area the aura's effect within 6" of the aircraft
The exact wording of is "Until the start of your next turn, enemy models aura abilities have no effect whilst within 6" of that unit."
It is not - enemy models within 6" of this unit have no aura abilities
enemy models aura abilities have no effect whilst within 6" of that unit - refers to an area of the tabletop
enemy models within 6" of this unit have no aura abilities or
The aura abilities of enemy models within 6" of this unit have no effect - would refer to the enemy model issueing the aura - preventing that model issueing its auras outwith the 6" of the aircraft if they themselves were within it
Take something simple an SM cpt reroll 1 aura imagine its 5" from the aircraft
under
enemy models aura abilities have no effect whilst within 6" of that unit -the area towards the aircraft would no longer benefit from the aura however the area outside aircraft's aura is still benefiting, because the CPT is still issuing the aura only the effect is disabled within 6" of the aircraft under the other two nothing would benefit because the cpt aura was dissabled.
Conversely a CPT 7" from the aircraft will have a big section of its aura dissabled dispite itself not being in range
If at any point there are no friendly <chapter> techmarine gunner units within 6" of a thunderfire cannon, that thunderfire cannon is destroyed
Yes the cannon is destroyed is an effect - therefore if the cannon is covered by the aircrafts aura the aura doesn't apply and the cannon would not be removed
however if it is not within aura range but the techmarine is then the aura is still applying it just has no effect on the area the techmarine is standing in and doesn't locate him and applies its effect as if he wasnt there
The wording of the strat itself is unclear, and there's also that very unfortunate typo in it that shows they didn't proofread it.
When it says "enemy models [sic] aura abilities have no effect whilst within 6" " it is not clear whether this means that the ability has no effect - i.e. the aura is effectively removed from the datasheet if the model generating it is within 6" - or whether it means that the aura itself is suppressed in a 6" bubble around the copter, but is still projected by the model, and still in effect on anything not within 6" of the copter.
You can argue it both ways, but I don't think it's very convincing to say it is clearly one or the other. It's very easy to see the argument for either position based on the grammar of the sentence.
ive just been 100% ignoring any arguments about it for that very reason.
The rule is not defined right. And theres no way it removes guns if the gunner "isnt there anymore" because that hurts marines and posterchildren cannot be hurt by bad rule interaction that severely.
Hey all, I painted the Alpha of my new Serberys Sulphurhounds, figured you'd be interested in seeing the results, in my Stygies VIII scheme as usual. Don't hesitate to follow the link in my signature for more Stygies VIII !
If the check is an aura then the check doesnt occur within 6" of the aircraft. That is all. not a binary on off of the whole aura.
And yes it works the same with mek guns
And if the check does not occur, then the guns are not removed.
The guns are removed if the check finds no crew within range. No check, no removal.
It is a simple if,then rule; those are exactly binary, and also yes it turns off the whole of the aura portion of the rule.
Quoting the relevant bit of the rule:
crewed artillery wrote: If at any point there are no friendly <CHAPTER> Techmarine Gunner units within 6" of a Thunderfire Cannon, that Thunderfire Cannon is destroyed
The Aura for the check is on the cannon, and its effect causes the destruction of the cannon. EFCM causes auras to have no effect.
The only thing that I cannot understand, is how you think that it causes the destruction of the gun when that is the effect and the strange claims that it just removes the ability to check.
Vineheart01 wrote: Overwatch is a 1cp stratagem now.
That....kinda royally messes with things. And greatly concerns me. Those perks that boost overwatch were never considered amazing in the first place and now theyre even less enticing as they cost cp to actually benefit from.
i'm fine with limiting overwatch to promote melee heavy armies multi-charging instead of daisy-chaining, but did it have to actually cost a cp?
A) day 1 errata likely changes things around
B) stratagem isn't only way to overwatch. Some Units will have it as ability as well
Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote: Agripinaaa dead you need 12CP just for the strat
Seeing you can use it max length of game so what 6-7 max(?)that is exaggeration.
And you have 18 in 6 turn game
Automatically Appended Next Post:
astro_nomicon wrote: Y’all are aware there’s no way in hell that your flappy copters will be aura-vaping TFCs in any half serious tourney ever, right? Ok then, moving on.
Naah he will insist it does never minding removing aura also removes removal part so even if you go it's aura you also remove effect of removing.
But him being him he insists otherwise even if gw yells at his ear otherwise
No i follow the rules if gw says it works different or its not what they intended at that point it changes but untill then it works as it is written you cant pick and choose what rules are intended.
What i don't do is accept the assertion it doesn't work that way with no RAW evidence.
Not sure this is a meaningful change? I cant remember the exact wording of the original, just the number of non-vehicle/monster things is new isn't it?
There was no requirement for proximity to friendlies, your character could be standing alone in an empty field in full view, but so long as your opponent couldn't get closer to them than any of your other units, they couldn't target them.
U02dah4 wrote: Efcm causes auras to have no effect within 6" of the aircraft not to have no effect outwith that range
"Until the start of your next turn, enemy models aura abilities have no effect whilst within 6"
Enemy models aura abilities - have no effect - whilst within 6"
Not the aura abilities of enemy models within 6" have no effect
The targets the aura not the model
Yes the check is binary
But if the gunner is within 6" the aura has no effect and so the gun gets removed as the rest of the aura is still checking
Saying that is the effect - when the RAW as quoted above contradicts you proves you wrong.
What is the effect of the Aura?
Destroying the cannon ig there are no gunner unita within 6".
You really are trying to argue nonsense.
The effect of the aura is the If-Then, it does not apply if either or both units are under the strat: the strat never destroys crewed artillery. The only thing with such units that the strat can shut down is the Crew's aura to fire the artillery, of the crew is in range of the strat.
First effect of the aura is to continuously check that there is a techmarine within 6".
If there isn't a further effect is triggered namely the gun is removed.
If both units are under the rule is disabled on the gun so no effect.
If just the techmarine then the aura cannot locate it during the first check and the second effect occurs as its not been disabled.
If just the gun the check occurs and locates the techmarine (although if it didn't the second effect would be disabled.)
Only the area of the aura within 6" of the aircraft has no effect.
This would have to be wrong in order for you to be right and so far you have not supplied any evidence supporting your position just an assertion that you are right which yoinwould have done by now had you a case.
Madjob wrote: There was no requirement for proximity to friendlies, your character could be standing alone in an empty field in full view, but so long as your opponent couldn't get closer to them than any of your other units, they couldn't target them.
Oh yeah, you're right! That is pretty cool actually, thematically my group has always hated the rule.
Madjob wrote: There was no requirement for proximity to friendlies, your character could be standing alone in an empty field in full view, but so long as your opponent couldn't get closer to them than any of your other units, they couldn't target them.
Oh yeah, you're right! That is pretty cool actually, thematically my group has always hated the rule.
Yeah its largely a buff for our castle lists but will negatively effect the third untargetable enginseer sitting alone on an objective.
I don't think the copter would kill the gun. The gun just states "is there a gunner within 6 inches, if not the gun dies." Aura ability or no, the gunner is physically still within 6" of the gun. Yes the auras are shut down and I would agree he could not fire it, but saying that the gun dies because it's an aura for what is really more of a check just seems asinine. Don't get me wrong, I hate TFC with a passion, but this doesn't seem right that you can pay a CP and just remove it for flying close.
Not even on just a RAI basis but a RAW one, aura or no, the gun only requires a check to see if a model is physically within 6". It is not an aura ability giving the gunner a boost, it's merely a check to see if it's there. The copter does not remove the gunner, it does not physically push away the gunner, it merely removes the effect of aura abilities. So even if you're arguing that it shuts down the aura affect of the gunner to keep the gun alive... You've now argued that the rule is null and void because your copter nullifies the aura that if there is no gunner within 6, the model dies and it has no effect. After all, you're arguing ALL effects of the aura are shut down. By pure RAW with that line of thinking, you could kill the tecmarine and if the gun was still within range of the copter using the strat, it wouldn't actually need to be removed because the aura is null and void now.
Either way this argument feels moot to be totally honest, I cannot see any TO looking at that in an event and going "oh yeah the gun is dead, easy". It just comes across as incredibly TFG behavior, no offense. This is something that bare minimum, would destroy any hopes you may have had at a decent sportsmanship score. Not to mention pulling a move like this going to make your opponent not give you an inch for the rest of the game. Hope you enjoy being called on every move, every roll, and every strat after that because pulling a move like that would all but guarantee your opponent is going to do everything in their power to ruin your game.
Tl;Dr even if it is RAW the gun dies from the aura, the bad blood and karma you would get just isn't worth it.
Not sure this is a meaningful change? I cant remember the exact wording of the original, just the number of non-vehicle/monster things is new isn't it?
Yes, and other characters.
The other thing to note is the way it is worded seems like characters may get to attach themselves to other units again.
Seems like 8th was a complete strip-down, with 9th reintroducing more complex rules and things similar to USRs; this is not a bad thing if done right. As it stands now we have the 3rd/4th edition problems of multiple same named rules with slight variations, and silly different names that are carbon copies of the same rule(every once in a while FAQ'd in opposing ways)
First effect of the aura is to continuously check that there is a techmarine within 6".
If there isn't a further effect is triggered namely the gun is removed.
If both units are under the rule is disabled on the gun so no effect.
If just the techmarine then the aura cannot locate it during the first check and the second effect occurs as its not been disabled.
If just the gun the check occurs and locates the techmarine (although if it didn't the second effect would be disabled.)
Only the area of the aura within 6" of the aircraft has no effect.
This would have to be wrong in order for you to be right and so far you have not supplied any evidence supporting your position just an assertion that you are right which yoinwould have done by now had you a case.
So you are going backwards and still utterly wrong on just about everything.
The Aura has 1 effect: destroy the gun if no gunner unit is withing the aura.
The check is the aura, the effect is the negative answer to the check.
But even if we applied your nonsense of 2 effects: both do nothing under the strat (aura abilties have no effect).
Your other bit erroneously applies the Aura to the gunner unit, this is patently false. The strat does not change the status of the Techmarine Gunner unit into somehow not a Techmarine gunner unit, and the strat in this scenario is also having no effect on the gun.
The Aura on the gun checks for a gunner unit within range, sees that there is one(because none of the Techmarine Gunner's status as a friendly <CHAPTER> Techmarine Gunner unit changes in any way) so does not apply the Effect.
There is no way for the strat to destroy any models that have an aura ability interdendent on proximity to other models.
Also mentioned in the footnotes of the Sisters article:
* In the new edition, your charge roll has to be sufficient to reach ALL of the units you have declared a charge against, otherwise your charge is unsuccessful and no models are moved.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I don't think the copter would kill the gun. The gun just states "is there a gunner within 6 inches, if not the gun dies." Aura ability or no, the gunner is physically still within 6" of the gun. Yes the auras are shut down and I would agree he could not fire it, but saying that the gun dies because it's an aura for what is really more of a check just seems asinine. Don't get me wrong, I hate TFC with a passion, but this doesn't seem right that you can pay a CP and just remove it for flying close.
Not even on just a RAI basis but a RAW one, aura or no, the gun only requires a check to see if a model is physically within 6". It is not an aura ability giving the gunner a boost, it's merely a check to see if it's there. The copter does not remove the gunner, it does not physically push away the gunner, it merely removes the effect of aura abilities. So even if you're arguing that it shuts down the aura affect of the gunner to keep the gun alive... You've now argued that the rule is null and void because your copter nullifies the aura that if there is no gunner within 6, the model dies and it has no effect. After all, you're arguing ALL effects of the aura are shut down. By pure RAW with that line of thinking, you could kill the tecmarine and if the gun was still within range of the copter using the strat, it wouldn't actually need to be removed because the aura is null and void now.
Either way this argument feels moot to be totally honest, I cannot see any TO looking at that in an event and going "oh yeah the gun is dead, easy". It just comes across as incredibly TFG behavior, no offense. This is something that bare minimum, would destroy any hopes you may have had at a decent sportsmanship score. Not to mention pulling a move like this going to make your opponent not give you an inch for the rest of the game. Hope you enjoy being called on every move, every roll, and every strat after that because pulling a move like that would all but guarantee your opponent is going to do everything in their power to ruin your game.
Tl;Dr even if it is RAW the gun dies from the aura, the bad blood and karma you would get just isn't worth it.
the check is the aura if the aura has no effect in the area the check does not occur in that area. RAI certainly might not be the case but RAI is irrelevant we play by RAW because we cannot know GW intention untill they tell us in an faq.
I'm arguing the aura check is shut down only within the aura of the aircraft outside that they continue as normal.
auras don't have to be beneficial debuffs shut down just as buffs
yes that is correct killing the techmarine while in range of the gun keeps the gun alive until the stratagem wares off or the models move apart not all interactions are beneficial
it is a weird interaction in the rules but it is the RAW one and only effects a couple of units in the game and only if their not screened it won't come up often. I'm also not saying I think it should work that way just that it does.
If you stick to the rules your opponent is allowed to waste their clock time checking them. Your not presenting a RAW case that it doesn't work that way in fact you appear to recognise it does. Just that you don't like it or think it should and that you would be unsporting if faced by this. I'm not sure you speak for every TO, most I know stick to RAW as long as the game functions( unless the tournament pack says otherwise.)
That character rule pretty much just means the lone character off in nomans land (usually a SSAG) can still be targeted, despite notbeing the closest period
I like all of the new editions rules so far, except for some odd visibility issues like ruins blocking los infinetely and some models that are small but have 18+ wounds.
Also, does that mean if a unit hugs a ruins wall, but can still shoot a flyer that is at the other end of the board, although you only can see stuff 90 degrees above you or behind you?
Funnily enough I wonder what they will do with the Engineseer.
He is fine as a cheap repair bot in AM lists because they dont have other repairing units like us.
He has gotten a cool looking beefy model and was even promoted to be a HQ for admech ( because admech was unplayable with just the dominus)
Lorewise he isnt really fitted to be an HQ, although GW could further differentiate between the admech enginseers and the engineseers that are even further down the ladder of rank who are gifted to the IG.
He had only a couple of purposes which SOLELY come from being cheap. Namely farming CP, standing in the way or covering the no mans land behind you, which he now no langer can do.
we can't say for sure we don't have full los rules
as to the enginseer his function is to be cheap repair vehicles and with the new wl traits has a range of auras lots of castles will want one or two stood next to cawl/dominus
I thought about a thing concerning the new multi-charge rule and the Serberys Raiders.
So the new multi-charge rules says that if you declare a charge against more than 1 unit, the charge roll needs to be sufficient to be able to reach ALL the declared targets. If it doesn't, the charge fails and no model moves.
This means that once a turn, we could use the Raiders to be a roadblock to protect a unit. By placing them in a conga line between our would-be charged unit, and the opposing would-be charging unit, the opponent have to declare a charge against the Raiders to move within 1" of them to reach the other side, or must charge around them, losing charge distance in the process. Now if the enemy targets the Raiders with a charge, we can use the stratagem to have them move immediately 12" away. Now our opponent must be able to reach the Raiders, who're much farther away then before, or his charge fails.
Though in the rumours thread, someone mentioned Reece saying that we haven't seen one of the biggest changes of melee combat, so that tactic may fall flat depending on said rule.
theres another big melee change?
Concerning. They already revealed terrain affects combat now, big things can shoot into combat, overwatch is a stratagem, and falling back has a mild risk of causing mortal wounds.
I am having a hard time thinking of what they could change core-rule wise for combat that wouldnt actually severely hurt it. That is, except for allowing you to attack Heroic Intervened units you didnt declare but i would be surprised if they did that because that rule is there to prevent you from just dumping all the attacks on that character.
... *gasp* maybe the character rule applies in melee but you cant attack them period if you can attack something else now??? lol
I am not sure if aura abilities exist outside of the rules themselves. I am inclined to think that it only shuts down the TFC; it does not cause it to be removed.
Your not sure aura abilities exist outside the rules? Then i'm certain your answer is not grounded in the rules. To what do you think the strategem refers when it says "aura abilities.
Core rules
Aura Abilities
Some units – usually
Characters – have
abilities that affect certain
models within a given
range. Unless the ability in
question says otherwise, a
model with a rule like this
is always within range of
the effect.
If just the techmarine then the aura cannot locate it during the first check and the second effect occurs as its not been disabled.
the strat doesn't remove the techmarine so the thunderfire can still detect that there is a techmarine withint 6".
It removes the aura detecting the techmarine not the techmarine still being on the battlefield is irrelevant
Once again, no it does not remove the Aura.
It removes the effect of the Aura.
You have even admitted this yourself.
The Check is the Aura(same as say, a Captain's "Friendly <CHAPTER> units within 6"), the effect is the destruction of the gun(back to the Captain's Aura effect being re-roll 1's to hit).
I am really not sure if you are just Dense, or really trying to go at any angle you can grasp at to get the effect you have decided should happen.
The Strat only removes the effect of the Aura, not the aura in totality(functionally identical, but a big distinction), and even if it did remove the whole aura; that would include the destruction of the gun.
it removes the effect of the aura (it's semantically the same thing as removing the aura but only within the area within 6" of the aircraft) and you know what i meant.
the check and the removal are both effects of the aura rules. Your artificially trying to seperate parts of the aura rule and say those bits are effects and those bits are not. effectively picking and chooseing which bits to apply, When there is no rules based reason for doing so.
the aura has no effect within 6" of the aircraft therefore the whole aura rule has no effect in that range. That is what i have argued all along. i don't deny the removal is an effect of the rule but so is the check.
To quote you
"I am really not sure if you are just Dense, or really trying to go at any angle you can grasp at to get the effect you have decided should happen." but you cant pick and choose to suit you. i get it you want the more powerful version of the rules where you negate the whole rule on the character which might be intended but that's not what the stratagem says it refers to the area within 6" of the aircraft only. Yes in this situation and randomly with servitors mindlock ths version is better for the admech player but in most its worse. You block half the CPT aura but not all for example.
"The Strat only removes the effect of the Aura, not the aura in totality(functionally identical, but a big distinction), " correct
"and even if it did remove the whole aura; that would include the destruction of the gun. " incorrect because the whole aura is effectively removed but only within 6" of the aircraft. so yes if the gun is in that range thats how it works but if the gun is outside that range then the aura functions normally except within 6" of the aircraft where the aura has no effect.
If you go back a page or two ago i made a reference to the new look out sir rule not allowing cavalry to block LOS to a character. Someone pointed out i was mistaken - using the rules I looked it up varified I was wrong - so I posted that i was mistaken. There argument convinced me because it was based .... in the rules.
Your arguments don't because to date you have quoted no rules to support your position. Furthermore the relevant rule on the strategem as I quoted early refers only to the area within 6" of the aircraft. I mean if you can find me a quote stateing that enemy models within 6" lose their aura abilities sure i'll look it up and agree. What I won't do is accept your position based on you telling me how it works when what your saying goes against the RAW
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Suzuteo wrote: I meant that I don't think auras exist as physical qualia on the board that can be blocked in the manner you describe.
I guess that would depend on your definition of physical qualia
Auras have rules - those have defined characteristics such as a 6" range or only effecting <forgeworld> sure there might not be a physical circle on the board. However their is an abstract one. I cannot see a circle but i can use a tape measure to determine whats in that area.
Stratagems also have rules - they also have defined characterstics. Such as what and when it can target sure their might not be physical marker of that strategem on the board. However their is an abstract one. If I use protector doctrina imperative on a unit of vanguard there is no physical marker but their is a buff to hit and specified duration.
As to whether a stratagem can effect the characteristics of a an aura up until recently the answer was no. However as with all GW games rules are absolute until GW create one that says otherwise.
So then it comes down to the specific instance
"untill the start of your next turn, enemy models aura abilities have no effect within 6" "
Fixed time frame and a clear rule - enemy models aura abilities have no effect within 6" implying the stratagem creates an abstract area within 6" in which enemy models aura abilities have no effect. So by definition the strategem does block in the manor I describe by the stratagem creating an exception to the normal game rules. Unless you can quote a rules based reason that it doesn't.
it removes the effect of the aura (it's semantically the same thing as removing the aura but only within the area within 6" of the aircraft) and you know what i meant.
the check and the removal are both effects of the aura rules. Your artificially trying to seperate parts of the aura rule and say those bits are effects and those bits are not. effectively picking and chooseing which bits to apply, When there is no rules based reason for doing so.
the aura has no effect within 6" of the aircraft therefore the whole aura rule has no effect in that range. That is what i have argued all along. i don't deny the removal is an effect of the rule but so is the check.
To quote you
"I am really not sure if you are just Dense, or really trying to go at any angle you can grasp at to get the effect you have decided should happen." but you cant pick and choose to suit you. i get it you want the more powerful version of the rules where you negate the whole rule on the character which might be intended but that's not what the stratagem says it refers to the area within 6" of the aircraft only. Yes in this situation and randomly with servitors mindlock ths version is better for the admech player but in most its worse. You block half the CPT aura but not all for example.
"The Strat only removes the effect of the Aura, not the aura in totality(functionally identical, but a big distinction), " correct
"and even if it did remove the whole aura; that would include the destruction of the gun. " incorrect because the whole aura is effectively removed but only within 6" of the aircraft. so yes if the gun is in that range thats how it works but if the gun is outside that range then the aura functions normally except within 6" of the aircraft where the aura has no effect.
If you go back a page or two ago i made a reference to the new look out sir rule not allowing cavalry to block LOS to a character. Someone pointed out i was mistaken - using the rules I looked it up varified I was wrong - so I posted that i was mistaken. There argument convinced me because it was based .... in the rules.
Your arguments don't because to date you have quoted no rules to support your position. Furthermore the relevant rule on the strategem as I quoted early refers only to the area within 6" of the aircraft. I mean if you can find me a quote stateing that enemy models within 6" lose their aura abilities sure i'll look it up and agree. What I won't do is accept your position based on you telling me how it works when what your saying goes against the RAW
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Suzuteo wrote: I meant that I don't think auras exist as physical qualia on the board that can be blocked in the manner you describe.
I guess that would depend on your definition of physical qualia
Auras have rules - those have defined characteristics such as a 6" range or only effecting <forgeworld> sure there might not be a physical circle on the board. However their is an abstract one. I cannot see a circle but i can use a tape measure to determine whats in that area.
Stratagems also have rules - they also have defined characterstics. Such as what and when it can target sure their might not be physical marker of that strategem on the board. However their is an abstract one. If I use protector doctrina imperative on a unit of vanguard there is no physical marker but their is a buff to hit and specified duration.
As to whether a stratagem can effect the characteristics of a an aura up until recently the answer was no. However as with all GW games rules are absolute until GW create one that says otherwise.
So then it comes down to the specific instance
"untill the start of your next turn, enemy models aura abilities have no effect within 6" "
Fixed time frame and a clear rule - enemy models aura abilities have no effect within 6" implying the stratagem creates an abstract area within 6" in which enemy models aura abilities have no effect. So by definition the strategem does block in the manor I describe by the stratagem creating an exception to the normal game rules. Unless you can quote a rules based reason that it doesn't.
So you really are just dense or trying to get your way.
The check is the definition of an aura.
But none of the Fething matters.
The (or feth it, one of the) effect(s) of the aura is destruction of the gun.
WHICH THE STRAT CAUSES NOT TO HAPPEN.
Just as you seem the think the definition of an aura is removed("If at any time there are no <CHAPTER> Techmarine Gunner units with 6" of a Thunderfire Cannon), you cannot separate out and apply the Effect of the Aura("that Thunderfire Cannon is destroyed") without removing it as well.
You were trying to separate the two effects and I was telling you you can't do that it's arbitrarily picking and choosing.
I don't separate the two they are either disabled or not but only within the area within 6" of the aircraft.
If one model is wholly within the stratagem aura and one is not then the enemy models auras have no effect on the model in the aircrafts aura as that is what the stratagem does.
It does not stop the enemies models auras affecting the model not within 6" of the aircraft as there is no rule telling you to do that unless you can supply one.
I will quote the stratagem again.... "until the start of your next turn, enemy models aura abilities have no effect within 6" "
There is no part of that rule that prevents auras functioning outwith 6" of the aircraft. Or says because one model is within the aircraft range all models are unaffected by the aura.
If you can not provide ANY.... evidence to support your position then I can only conclude that you are to quote you "just dense or trying to get your own way". Because up till now you haven't made a case you just state it doesn't work that way without evidenceing that.
U02dah4 wrote: If one model is wholly within the stratagem aura and one is not then the enemy models auras have no effect on the model in the aircrafts aura as that is what the stratagem does.
It does not stop the enemies models auras affecting the model not within 6" of the aircraft as there is no rule telling you to do that unless you can supply one.
I will quote the stratagem again.... "until the start of your next turn, enemy models aura abilities have no effect within 6" "
You have no Idea how to read the Strat.
So let's set up a scenario, You have an Archeopter unit with a command uplink and fly it into a position with the following radii: 1 Unit of 6 Hellblasters, Closest model is 4" away, furthest is 9" away, there is only 1 other model in the unit within 6" of the Archeopter. There is A Primaris Captain 5" from the Archeopter, but within 6" of both the nearest Hellblaster and one of the further hellblasters. There is also a Primaris Lt 7" from the Archeopter, but within 6" of the Hellblasters.
By your reading, 4 of the Hellblasters can re-roll 1's to both hit and wound.
What you should be getting from the rule is that all the Hellblasters may re-roll 1s to wound, but none may re-roll 1s to attack.
It is the typo plural "models" instead of Posessive "model's" that is causing your nonsense confusion.
And: your confusion is still nonsense, in the TFC or other "Crewed Artillery" rules because the entirety of that gun destruction effect is on the gun: The effect that destroys the gun is on the gun under the strat. So you seem to not even know what is being discussed here.
And: Yes, it is clearly a typo "enemy models aura abilities" is completely meaningless unless read in the possessive, or plural possessive.
No by my reading all of the hellblasters benefit from the auras.
The primaris captains/lieutenents auras are worded such that only one model in the unit needs to be affected for the whole unit to benefit.(the aura targets unit not models.
Given most auras work that way thats why 6" of the aircraft is less powerfull than removing the aura entirely
The captain benefits from neither aura as its within aircrafts aura the lieutenent from both as its outside the aircrafts aura
As to tfc it does not matter from which model the aura is comming from. That aura does not apply within 6" of the aircraft - it is a null zone. - no check occurs in that reagion - it continues to check outside that region and will remove the gun if no tech priest can be found outwith that region.
And finnaly the crux of the issue. "Enemy models aura abilities". you can't prove it's a typo- RAW it proves me correct and you wrong. What your doing is making an argument based on intention, you believe its a typo because GW intented it to stop enemy models projecting auras.
Luckily theres a tradition of RAW trumps RAI, because we cannot know GW intention - maybe it was a typo maybe it wasn't you can't prove that but you did just prove yourself wrong under RAW.
As to not making sense, it makes sense you just don't agree with what it says.
Enemy models aura abilities within 6"
Within 6" of the aircraft - makes sense -defined area of the battlefield
Aura abilities within 6" - makes sense - rules following the definition of aura abilities in the core rules within a defined 6" area of the battlefield
Enemy models aura abilities within 6" - makes sense- - only effects enemy models rules following the definition of aura abilities (otherwise it would negate itself) within a defined 6" area of the battlefield
It makes sense you may not beleive it was intended but intention is irrelevant when the raw makes sense.
Could you 2 guys please consider taking this argument to the YMDC forum?
At this point it's just you two arguing back and forth and while this is a mega thread, it is pretty much choking the thread right now
Thairne wrote: Could you 2 guys please consider taking this argument to the YMDC forum?
At this point it's just you two arguing back and forth and while this is a mega thread, it is pretty much choking the thread right now
Yeah I tried to talk tactics again a few posts ago but it got drowned in the fight
While the interview is the same as ever with what the playtesters are allowed to say "Now my Vehicles can shoot in combat, like all other factions, HELL YEAH" there's a couple of new things in there:
Spoiler:
If this is the new Fall Back, damn that's a HELL of a change. I don't know how to process it yet.
EDIT: I read it too quickly, the last paragraph suggests it's an addition to the general Fall Back rule. This one aimed at trying to make a trapped (tri-pointed) unit Fall Back nonetheless.
Spoiler:
New Warlord trait ? I don't recall it from earlier releases. Looks hellishly strong coupled with the stuff in Engine War to boost Kataphrons.
i think thats an alternate fallback, not a replacement one. This one lets you fall back even if you are totally surrounded and it says CANNOT do anything else, so any rule that allows them to still shoot or something doesnt come into play (cannot always wins in such an argument)
This way you cant have a big bad tank be surrounded by grots and be unable to fall back until it kills all the grots, but its costly to do it (2cp, ouch)
So... lets just assume kataphrons are kind of viable.
How many buffs could reasonably be stacked on Breachers to make them as tough as possible?
Servitor Maniple can give them a 5+.
Also basically one servitor per turn restored.
New WL Trait gives a 5++.
Artisan has a MW on a 6 when firing arc weapons OR AP -1.
Mars makes Heavy Arc Rifles way better at targeting their preferred target by adding +1 S. Rerolls from Cawl really help with the low BS.
A T5 3W 3+/5++/5+++ unit with 2 S7 shots that deals mortals on 6 for 30 pts?
Suddenly Skitarii seem REALLY wimpy...
Thairne wrote: So... lets just assume kataphrons are kind of viable.
How many buffs could reasonably be stacked on Breachers to make them as tough as possible?
Servitor Maniple can give them a 5+.
Also basically one servitor per turn restored.
New WL Trait gives a 5++.
Artisan has a MW on a 6 when firing arc weapons OR AP -1.
Mars makes Heavy Arc Rifles way better at targeting their preferred target by adding +1 S. Rerolls from Cawl really help with the low BS.
A T5 3W 3+/5++/5+++ unit with 2 S7 shots that deals mortals on 6 for 30 pts?
Suddenly Skitarii seem REALLY wimpy...
Lucius' new Canticle gives them +1 to their Invuln up to 4++ too for a turn. But then you give up the Mars Canticle.
I hope Skitarii remain a good choice because I hate Kataphron models and don't want to feel gimped for not having any. I intend on playing thematic armies but don't want a Nighthaunt army for 40k where everyone is kicking me on the ground and laughing at it in games
And you give up cawl's reroll aura to help with the terrible BS with low volume of fire.
But for smaller games, Lucius might be a go-to for Kataphron lists...
I guess I'll knock one up and see where it goes!
Yeah alternatively just using Acquisition At All Cost does the same and gives +1A on top of that if near an objective. And it's +1 armour save too. But 2 CPs and for a turn too though, might be costly considering all the CPs needed for a Kataphron list.
Might be also why I'm not a fan of the playstyle, it's kind of a one-trick pony. Also played a game once where my opponent with the relic Battle Cannon killed 3 Destroyers in one go, kind of salty about that
I actually think in 9th it will be even better.
Brigades will provide even more utiity/slots with heavy support. Fast attack can be filled with Serberys and Servitors fill the elite slot nicely while providing bodies to be stuffed into the chasis.
Agripiina is weirdly enough not the best choice anymore - or at least Mars is very close. The canticle and cawl rerolls are just too good for the output.
Destroyers will NEVER be durable compared to their cost. I'd still expect them to do one turn of shooting when trundling out of LOS and then get dusted... they're just too damn squishy for their firepower to be left alive. Although everyone that survives thanks to the 5++/5+++ might get off another shot which basically doubles their expected value.
Agripinaa fails at ninth in a way what mars/stygies/lucius don't
However it is two early to be specific as too many potential faq changes could upend things. E.g. do they change it so multisubfaction armies dont benefit from a warlord canticle ( i would be opposed but i know some expect it) or pts changes.
Destroyers are a one of ryza unit in a mixed or ryza detatchment anything else and their inefficient and they frequently wint survive in agripinaa to be rezed. Breachers have the durability
Well with Ryza you have a higher maximum damage output whereas with Mars you have a higher average output.
I prefer consistency, so I wouldn't say its "Ryza or go home", personally.
I also dont do mixed detachments for ease of game reasons... in a friendly, non competetive setting going hard on stuff like that usually leads to onesided games.
Not really if your buffing the ryza unit RR1's and +2 to hit it performs identically to mars except wounds more and damage more.
You only have 1 turn to make the pts back so lf your not maxing out I wouldn't bother
Mixed is a valid archetype presently because many admech units are inefficient unless you strat them correctly. (Which personnally is a poor design choice)
The concept might seem gamey but the alternative is not useing cool units like destroyers or making your army inefficient and createing a one sided game in which you lose. Its also why competitive admech outside the castle is very CP intensive
Mars does something for every other unit as well, including the breachers... But it all depends on your meta. If you have to min/max, do it - I definately see the benefits. But since I'd have to start explaining the "this unit does this although it looks the same as that unit in the same colour scheme" it errs too hard into "this melta is in reality a flamer" which I really dislike. I want to play my opponent and not burden him with more stuff to remember than we all have to anyway playing this game
If your going to mix all your units you need a different colour scheme to be clear.
Although you can still do that in a cohesive way. In my case metallics and bases and are the same but say helmets might be a different colour
Green helmet stygies, orange ring, ryza red torso lucius.
If your running mixed you probably want a primary brigade and only a few mixed units in a second detatchmentt one of each so its not too bad if you wanted to do them properly
personally i find it really hard to not run just mono mars right now. The warlord traits fill enough gaps that you lack from other dogmas and mars + cawl is just too awesome to pass up. Biggest being lack of fall back + shoot, oh wait warlord trait anyway lol.
Also replacing the #2 canticle is probably the best one to replace in more ways than one. Obviously its the best replacement because that stupid Electro-canticle is useless, but you generally dont want #1 or #3 either and Cawl just pushes it to #2 so pretty much 50-50 chance to get the mars canticle lol. Gotta say, S5 stubbers are amazingballs. The Dunerider has actually been doing damage for me lately and its kinda baffling.
I find it easy not to run Mars (except one unit of infiltrators if i take a mixed detatchment) but then I am board control player not a castle player and have only podiumed at GT's with stygies + a crusader.
Mars is the most efficient shooting list and the simplest to play.
However it suffers from two big problems it seeds most of the board which may work in itc but doesnt in maelstrom based formats and it lacks comparative durability to say stygies (if it goes first you will do better than stygies but if you go 2nd you'll do worse.
What prevents mars having allies is you have to justify cawl's expense. Otherwise lots of unit might benefit more being in other subfactions.
Well, some of the new Engine War stuff settles it fo me: I am going to have to buy a unit of neophyte hybrids to kit-bash together some servitors(kataphron arms for the servo arm, have plenty of spare plasma cannon, and mm parts from other Imperial armies).
Bodies already look similar enough, arms and heads are easy swaps: boom $44usd for 10 servitors that I can also use in my sons of medusa army.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Well, some of the new Engine War stuff settles it fo me: I am going to have to buy a unit of neophyte hybrids to kit-bash together some servitors(kataphron arms for the servo arm, have plenty of spare plasma cannon, and mm parts from other Imperial armies).
Bodies already look similar enough, arms and heads are easy swaps: boom $44usd for 10 servitors that I can also use in my sons of medusa army.
I really like some themed forces, and with the 2 new Serbyris units along with custom FWs/ordo Warlords I was already thinking of making a ranger force(rangers, cavalry, ballistarii) and a vanguard force(vanguard, dragoons, sulpherhounds).
Now I can also do kataphrons, servitors, and kastellans as an "automata" force with good effect as well.
For my guard armies I already have full tank and artillery companies, and still play some Infantry platoon battalion/brigade detachment forces(hwt as heavy support, co commander as the platoon lt, lord commissar as second HQ, 4-6 infantry squads, special weapon squads, and sentinels)
Kommissar Kel wrote: Well, some of the new Engine War stuff settles it fo me: I am going to have to buy a unit of neophyte hybrids to kit-bash together some servitors(kataphron arms for the servo arm, have plenty of spare plasma cannon, and mm parts from other Imperial armies).
Bodies already look similar enough, arms and heads are easy swaps: boom $44usd for 10 servitors that I can also use in my sons of medusa army.
Did Servitors get any buffs in Engine War? What part of Engine War made servitors seem more appealing?
I actually have a ton of servitors, but are they actually useful for something..?
i dont think he wants the servitors for them, he wants them because hes running destroyers/breachers and theres a strat involving the two.
If i remember right, i dont own any so i might be mis remembering the reason for using them.
Vineheart01 wrote: i dont think he wants the servitors for them, he wants them because hes running destroyers/breachers and theres a strat involving the two.
If i remember right, i dont own any so i might be mis remembering the reason for using them.
Yea they're fodder for recycling dead/wounded Kataphrons - Vigilus Defiant specialist detachment warlord trait mulches 1 nearby Servitor with the detachment keyword in exchange for healing a Kataphron D3 wounds, or if there are no wounded ones, bringing a dead Kataphron back with 1 wound - done at the end of the movement phase so if you have a wounded Kataphron you can Master of Machines first to try and get it to full in order to make the revive legal.
Problem is Servitors are Elites and stuck at 4 models per unit period, no more no less, so while they can be run dirt cheap you can't exactly spam them. They do benefit from the new Genetor Holy Order trait though, Kataphrons and normal Servitors alike get a 5+++ within 6", so it's a little extra durability on them should your opponent try to focus down the Servitors before moving on to the Kataphrons.
Also the manipulus is a good model to put that warlord trait on, pulls double buffing duty to the kataphrons: adding 6" to all thier guns(or 2" to any flamers) is nice.
But it is mostly the genator lending to the theme.
I also finally bought some electro priests for an artisan manipulus and the new strat(likely used in a custo FW)
That's cool, I just didn't see what EW offered that would convince someone that Servitors would be a good thematic addition lol. I guess it's that Breachers are now even more awesome so having servitors with them lends itself to the theme.
I'm also buying more breaches, but I only had 3 before, so I'm replacing my troops with 3 x 3 Breachers and adding 3 x N Raiders to act as screens and skirmishers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am dead tempts with more Pteraxii though, they have moderate usefulness they're just the coolest looking models. Same reason I wish Sulphurhounds were better, the dual pistol doggo is much cooler than the pseudo-cowboy rifle doggo.
Drdotts wrote: So.....are we just gonna assume dakkabots are staying at 65? It’s been a little while with no FAQ
Assuming no new FAQs til 9th launches. GW probably figures there's not much casual playing going on and there's no super majors scheduled so why waste man hours writing FAQs that won't be in effect longer than a month.
Drdotts wrote: So.....are we just gonna assume dakkabots are staying at 65? It’s been a little while with no FAQ
Assuming no new FAQs til 9th launches. GW probably figures there's not much casual playing going on and there's no super majors scheduled so why waste man hours writing FAQs that won't be in effect longer than a month.
Because Engine War was the first of the 'intended for 9E' books.
Said it before, saying it again though:
I wouldn't be shocked if they are going to be doing a passthrough on what weapons things are said to have. Kastelans have always had a bit of a missed opportunity for an 'all-rounder' build of Fist, HPB, and HPB or Flamer shoulder. Might be that things are gonna get reclassified and what we do right now and point values adjusted via those specific taglines in the future.
If they follow the same process as with codex releases we would be expecting an errata or faq 'a couple of weeks' after the release of the book. So It's probably a little early to be jumping to conclusions on whether things are going to stay as they are until 9th.
People still submit questions via email, even in lockdown, there's no reason to not fix it just because there are no tournaments. UK lockdown restrictions would technically allow friends to meet for games of socially distanced 40k now. So people are certainly able to play the game now if they choose to.
The only possible explanation for HPB being zero points would be that the base cost of the Kastelan should have gone up as well and that isn't even listed in the books. But that also doesn't work out because an Onager Dunecrawler with zero cost HPB would be 70pts so it's base cost would have to go up in the book (also not listed) and also all the costs of its weapons: Neutron laser, icarus array and heavy stubbers. Also. Not. Listed.
In order this to be feasible the errata itself would have to adjust the costs of both the Kastelan and Onager as well as the points of all their available weapons. Sounds like a bigger job than simply "Whoops HPB arent zero cost, the phosphor carbine should have been zero and hpb remain at 15"
Onager Dunecrawler with them at 70pts is an even bigger mistake imo.
Its the biggest case of DBAD I've seen in a long time, there's no way its right and anyone trying to field Kastelan at 65pts or Dunecrawlers at 70pts should consider themselves the biggest heaviest bag of douche I've ever come across.
im...painfully just avoiding them right now. Which really hurts because the first thing that came to mind with all the changes was dakkabots lol.
But 65pts is way, way too cheap. I would even say meleebots are too cheap that low, and melee bots suck
"Twin" is just an homage leftover from Twinlinked days where it was a reroll instead of 2 guns.
All "Twin" guns just became two guns counting as one. Dunno why they didnt just remove that verbage, since theyre not even cheaper than the "two gun" side option (yet cant splitfire, unlike the two guns option) In that sense, Twin guns are actually inferior lol
And you literally just explained why they didn't ditch the "twin"/"quad" verbage.
Because quite a few of these items are actually meant to be a single weapon system rather than just a bunch of different guns.
Arguably, the Kastelans have always been lucky to get the 'two' instead of 'twin' that they did with 8th. It was another colossal cockup with the AdMech book since Cult Mechanicus had Kastelans replacing their fists with "twin-linked heavy phosphor blasters" not "two heavy phosphor blasters".
Do you think Questor Mechanicus Knights will have a "different codex" tax (if such tax finally materializes)?
I could stomach 2-3 CPs for a Superheavy Auxiliary detachment, but maybe not with further CPs on top.
Tldr; you only lose one model for a failed morale test. But then you have to roll as if the unit was in a destroyed vehicle. With a -1 penalty if the squad is at half strength.
Oh and an unmodified morale test roll of 1 always passes.
Tldr; you only lose one model for a failed morale test. But then you have to roll as if the unit was in a destroyed vehicle. With a -1 penalty if the squad is at half strength.
Oh and an unmodified morale test roll of 1 always passes.
so that means that we could run full 10 man skitarii squads and no fear morale quite so much anymore? Data tehers etc going to be very usual as well which explains the flyers leadership stuff.
Tldr; you only lose one model for a failed morale test. But then you have to roll as if the unit was in a destroyed vehicle. With a -1 penalty if the squad is at half strength.
Oh and an unmodified morale test roll of 1 always passes.
so that means that we could run full 10 man skitarii squads and no fear morale quite so much anymore? Data tehers etc going to be very usual as well which explains the flyers leadership stuff.
I probably wouldn't want to invite the Blast rule on T3 4+, so 5 mans are probably still going to be the norm.
Blast rule exists on quite a few S4 weapons so hard pass on that.
Also when i take rangars/vanguards i want the special gun, not the troop himself. 2x5 = 4 special guns, 1x10 = 3 and can be wiped by a single shooting round. Definite hard pass.
They dont really benefit from being a 10man unless you absolutely have no use for the Skitarii + to BS strat elsewhere.
Vineheart01 wrote: Blast rule exists on quite a few S4 weapons so hard pass on that.
Also when i take rangars/vanguards i want the special gun, not the troop himself. 2x5 = 4 special guns, 1x10 = 3 and can be wiped by a single shooting round. Definite hard pass.
They dont really benefit from being a 10man unless you absolutely have no use for the Skitarii + to BS strat elsewhere.
However spamming troops can become Costly now cp wise.
I think a brigade will still be the go to in 9th because of that and our warlord traits. I hope we can bring a knight without cp.
It's funny because I read this as so much more punishing than the current rules. At the moment we tend to only lose a couple of models to morale anyway, even with a squad of 10 if 4 die and the alpha is still alive it's still 50-50 if we lose anything.
Now if we fail a morale test we auto-lose one, but then every model left in the unit also has a chance to flee instead of just the couple we would normally lose.
I personally dont like this adjustment. For one you auto pass morale on a 1 which lessens the value of every morale ability. And another it further promotes the MSU approach, which we were all doing because of morale anyway.
Furthermore, it punishes those armies with units that have a high minimum squad size and doesn't do anything to make morale more impactful. If you never have to take a morale test and the chance of failing is now even less than it was before then the consequences are irrelevant.
So was this an attempt to make failing morale more punishing...or less punishing. I'm really not sure at this point lol
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I cant believe no-one is talking about us finally being able to include Inquisitorial Psykers in our Admech detachments!
"All Inquisition forces can be added into an Imperium Detachment without other units losing their Detachment abilities. So now is the perfect time to get Draxus to lead your Space Marines/Astra Militarum/Adeptus Mechanicus/Adepta Sororitas (delete as appropriate) army."
The Forgemaster wrote: Because we could do that since Nov 2019? (Index Inquisition white dwarf)
I think I somehow merged several sentences together and came up with the revelation that we could use an Inquisitor as an HQ choice in our battalions. But unless something changes they don't take up a slot as per the White Dwarf rules. Which is a shame because if the inquisition is involved they are most certainly leading/instructing/commanding a force, not a bystander :|
The difference is you can now include some monkeys along with the inquisitor, if you want. Or some acolytes, but those are terrible except in the gimmick xenos build where you make them unshootable and unchargeable unless the charging unit is within 6", and they nerfed the malleus power so I wouldn't be surprised if they nerf the xenos one too.
Octovol wrote: That's cool, I just didn't see what EW offered that would convince someone that Servitors would be a good thematic addition lol. I guess it's that Breachers are now even more awesome so having servitors with them lends itself to the theme.
I'm also buying more breaches, but I only had 3 before, so I'm replacing my troops with 3 x 3 Breachers and adding 3 x N Raiders to act as screens and skirmishers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am dead tempts with more Pteraxii though, they have moderate usefulness they're just the coolest looking models. Same reason I wish Sulphurhounds were better, the dual pistol doggo is much cooler than the pseudo-cowboy rifle doggo.
I already have 2 units of pteraxii, 1 of each. Might fill out both though.
and Sulpherhounds are only really bad at first glance: Rad saturation and all 3 attacks at S4(better to-wound than Raiders), can always fire their pistols at full BS, only thing that is garbage on them is the carbine(which is optional). Effectively they have a 24" range on base pistols, there are a few ways to get them -1 or -2 or more AP bonus, and Strat that ups the effective range to 30".
When I first skimmed their rules, I was all "Why would I take these over Raiders, and why do they cost more? then I thought about it and read the rest of the book.
Pteraxii still mildly bother me with not having talons on the alpha(yes, the goad is better anyway, the model is supposed to have them though) in the rules: But everything else is great: a unit of 5 skystalkers will cause more MWs to a vehicle than the fusilave, but without as much range for cheaper, and 12" AP-1 no cover save flamers are great.
On the Archeopters: the Fusilave is in the same boat as the sulpherhounds, better after some thought. The Transvector is the only one I am "meh" about, mainly due to limited capacity, although could be a decent delivery system for electro priests or forward Obsec skitarii. the Stratoraptor really shines though, mostly in a data-hoard(BS 3+ w/reroll? yes, please).
Tldr; you only lose one model for a failed morale test. But then you have to roll as if the unit was in a destroyed vehicle. With a -1 penalty if the squad is at half strength.
Oh and an unmodified morale test roll of 1 always passes.
Honestly, they should get rid of Morale. It's just another one of those things you need to track throughout your turn that slows things down.
At the very least, they should just do a Morale check immediately after a unit suffers losses. Ideally, only once, such as when it falls under half-strength.
Tldr; you only lose one model for a failed morale test. But then you have to roll as if the unit was in a destroyed vehicle. With a -1 penalty if the squad is at half strength.
Oh and an unmodified morale test roll of 1 always passes.
Honestly, they should get rid of Morale. It's just another one of those things you need to track throughout your turn that slows things down.
At the very least, they should just do a Morale check immediately after a unit suffers losses. Ideally, only once, such as when it falls under half-strength.
That was how it was done 3rd-5th, but not only once, end of any phase where you lost models; and you just straight up lose the whole unit if you fail.
This is both more balanced, and often less devastating than current... with some caveats.
MSU and large units will both lose about the same number of models. A 5-man squad that loses 3 models are more likely to have the last 2 flee, and a 10+ model unit that loses 3 models might see 2-3 more flee. Conversely that 10+ model unit that loses 4 will no longer automatically lose more to running away than actually attacked
Fly keyword no longer allows you to fallback and fire.
So....what DOES it do other than allow you to ignore terrain for movement? Is that it now? I mean that's still pretty good but lessens the value of flying units by a lot.
Also includes the changes to hit modifiers. looks like the cap to modifiers is so far ONLY on to-hit rolls, but I imagine it might apply to wound rolls as well...
Really the only other modifier that should be limited like that is wound rolls. If saves were limited then a handful of extra-cover benefiting units would suddenly suck, LD isnt as painful now so disallowing LD stacking negatives wouldnt make sense, and the rest would break the game (i.e. stats) if it was locked to +/-1
Though im curious if theyre gonna do anything about rules that mod the BS stat rather than +1 to hit. Theyre rare, but technically they arent a modifier.
Fly used to only be mobility, and that was plenty good in past editions. I personally couldnt believe it when i saw Fly let them fall back and shoot freely, too many armies have tons of Fly and a chunk of them even are a threat in melee on top of it. It might irritate Sterilyzers since theyre so short range and are actually decent in melee but Skystalkers generally didnt want melee anyway, they wanna sit at that 24" range unless theres not much out there so they can swoop in to bomb it.
And before anyone flips out about Aircrafts, they already showed the rule for them. They dont "fall back" anymore, they just move as normal. Not technically falling back = no falling back penalties.
Fly keyword no longer allows you to fallback and fire.
So....what DOES it do other than allow you to ignore terrain for movement? Is that it now? I mean that's still pretty good but lessens the value of flying units by a lot.
Also includes the changes to hit modifiers. looks like the cap to modifiers is so far ONLY on to-hit rolls, but I imagine it might apply to wound rolls as well...
I love how they used the Tau feature as an opportunity to s*** all over their army.
But hey, what hurts everyone else helps us. I am not sad at all that my Boats don't fly anymore.
Kommissar Kel wrote: That was how it was done 3rd-5th, but not only once, end of any phase where you lost models; and you just straight up lose the whole unit if you fail.
This is both more balanced, and often less devastating than current... with some caveats.
MSU and large units will both lose about the same number of models. A 5-man squad that loses 3 models are more likely to have the last 2 flee, and a 10+ model unit that loses 3 models might see 2-3 more flee. Conversely that 10+ model unit that loses 4 will no longer automatically lose more to running away than actually attacked
Oh yeah? I started in 7E. I think going back to that would really speed things up, not to mention help large units. Shoot at a unit, if it falls to half-strength, immediately roll for morale. If it fails, the entire unit dies.
Please don't make them cheaper in points, they're already a pain to buy, build and paint considering their points. Give them another attack and make them faster, 10" is way too slow I think. Make 'em 14", do they really look like they'd be slower than an armiger?
More attacks would be nice. The reason i wrote them off at first was only 3 attacks exploding on 6s. Meh, i say. MEH! But exploding on 4s meant quite a few attacks.
Also the -2 is still a factor, its not a -1 period its a net total of +/-1. If they have a bonus, the -2 comes into play and it still -1 to hit them instead of "normal"
Assuming they're good enough to address hiccups on units/abilities/stratagems that gave more than a +1 bonus without stacking, what could we get on Protector Doctrina Imperative for Data-tethers in place of +2 to hit?
actually i wonder if they'll errata that strat to do something else, like allow rerolls if you have the data tether or something. Its not like were stacking effects to get exploding 4s, were using a single strat. I suspect things that are one rule adding +/-2 might change.
The -2 to hit though i doubt that'll get "fixed" to still be a thing, that IS stacking rules, which is the point of the max +/-1 rule.
I'm even gonna say the typical 1 Knight + WLT + Relic auxiliary is nonfunctional. 5 CP for that setup, you're already down to 7 before any other pre-game spending, of which we now have a glut of options with Engine War.
Madjob wrote: I'm even gonna say the typical 1 Knight + WLT + Relic auxiliary is nonfunctional. 5 CP for that setup, you're already down to 7 before any other pre-game spending, of which we now have a glut of options with Engine War.
Kind of agree but the mechanicus detatchment being free means a selective build could still work but yep its bad
3/6 CP for a single/multiple Imperial Knights is way too high, no command benefit CP refund if the detachment contains your Warlord either. IK and Armigers will have to be priced (in points) very aggressively to see much use. Will have to wait and see what the method of refunding those CP is I suppose.
Madjob wrote: I'm even gonna say the typical 1 Knight + WLT + Relic auxiliary is nonfunctional. 5 CP for that setup, you're already down to 7 before any other pre-game spending, of which we now have a glut of options with Engine War.
Kind of agree but the mechanicus detatchment being free means a selective build could still work but yep its bad
Thinking on it some more, it might still do when you take the 1 CP/turn and I think Monitor Malevolus would be a must-take. But you will definitely need to be tight fisted with your CP, Raven Castellans need not apply.
Madjob wrote: I'm even gonna say the typical 1 Knight + WLT + Relic auxiliary is nonfunctional. 5 CP for that setup, you're already down to 7 before any other pre-game spending, of which we now have a glut of options with Engine War.
Kind of agree but the mechanicus detatchment being free means a selective build could still work but yep its bad
Thinking on it some more, it might still do when you take the 1 CP/turn and I think Monitor Malevolus would be a must-take. But you will definitely need to be tight fisted with your CP, Raven Castellans need not apply.
Assuming the rules do not change in Pariah, an Xenos Inquisitor with the Xenos warlord trait will get you back CP you spend on a 5+, often a more likely roll? and allows for stuff like smite etc.
So I have a question and I'm 90% sure DBAD applies here but thought I'd float the idea.
I'm intending on having two different custom Forgeworld detachments, a data hoard + trans node power core battalion with my HO Artisan and HO Genetor WTs full of Breachers, Ballistarii and Distintigrators and an Expansionist + Rugged Explorators one with Daedalosus full of raiders and skystalkers/sterylizors. Daedalosus' Omniscanner ability targets Adeptus Mechanicus so he'll be fine to help out my Dominus and Manipulus gunline from his separate detachment. My question is: these are custom Forgeworlds so can be named whatever we like, maybe I missed it but does that allow us to give them the same keyword for aura purposes? It's not the end of the world if my skystalkers and raiders cant benefit from the HO WT, they're arguably going to be off somewhere else causing a ruckus and drawing attention away from the guns anyway. But it might be nice if they were in range to get some benefits.
Edited for clarity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is the list if anyone is interested:
A highly mobile and flexible list imo. Our group only normally plays 1500 and I know I'm under that here but I'm sort of allowing for points increases and maybe switching skystalkers to sterylizors.
All 3 of those HQ auras stack up to be pretty horrendous for anyone I can target with a few utilities to get me out of sticky situations.
I let my buddy go first just to see what a mech Primaris list could do. He killed 7 breachers, 10 hoplites, 2.5 Kastelan Robots, and a Neutronager. Plus a robot blew up and put MWs on half my damn army.
My retaliation was apocalyptic. Autocannons with the Mars canticle with extra hits on 6s and AP-2 at <27" are NUTS. TWICE I rolled double 6s for my Neutron Laser, turning 2 shots into 4 hits, haha. Otherwise, my dice rolls were enough to turn BBone into a plant from across the pond. It didn't matter, 12 autocannon shots per turn with an Icarus Array and a Neutron Laser were just about enough to kill an entire 2000 point Primaris list. I think I tabled him by turn 4. S5 heavy stubbers are also incredible. I never used Cawl before and, wow, he really is just a re-roll Aura and Canticle manipulator. He got punked by a Primaris Captain and that was a little disappointing. He definitely feels like a holdover from the Index days or something. I don't understand how a Primaris Captain turned into a Chapter Master is so much better than Cawl. Hopefully he gets updated.
Autocannon Ballistarii are RIDICULOUS. I cannot say this enough. They just brutally shred everything with Mars Canticle, Cawl rerolls, exploding 6s to hit, and the +1 to wound against vehicles.
Colonel Cross wrote: Haha I think this very subject has come up frequently in the Astra Militarum thread. I don't recall the consensus, but my gut says that wouldn't fly.
I got to play a game against a unique Primaris mechanized Ultramarines list using the new Engine War rules. Here was my list:
++ Brigade Detachment [140 PL, 2,000pts,15CP] ++
Belisarius Cawl
Daedalosus
Tech-Priest Dominus: Eradication Ray, Phosphor Serpenta, Relic: Autocaduceus of Arkhan Land, Warlord Trait: Divinations of the Magos
Tech-Priest Manipulus [5 PL, 65pts]: Magnarail lance, Warlord Trait: Fabrications of the Artisan
I let my buddy go first just to see what a mech Primaris list could do. He killed 7 breachers, 10 hoplites, 2.5 Kastelan Robots, and a Neutronager. Plus a robot blew up and put MWs on half my damn army.
My retaliation was apocalyptic. Autocannons with the Mars canticle with extra hits on 6s and AP-2 at <27" are NUTS. TWICE I rolled double 6s for my Neutron Laser, turning 2 shots into 4 hits, haha. Otherwise, my dice rolls were enough to turn BBone into a plant from across the pond. It didn't matter, 12 autocannon shots per turn with an Icarus Array and a Neutron Laser were just about enough to kill an entire 2000 point Primaris list. I think I tabled him by turn 4. S5 heavy stubbers are also incredible. I never used Cawl before and, wow, he really is just a re-roll Aura and Canticle manipulator. He got punked by a Primaris Captain and that was a little disappointing. He definitely feels like a holdover from the Index days or something. I don't understand how a Primaris Captain turned into a Chapter Master is so much better than Cawl. Hopefully he gets updated.
Thanks for this, I have similar plans for that list up there, though I am a little worried it relies too much on Breachers... There are so many layered overlapping bonuses with the new Dogmas/Canticles and HO WTs it's immense! My plans include the following:
All the Skystalkers and Raiders increase their AP by 1 if they charge and can advance and fire their ranged weapons at no penalty.
All Ballistarii and Disintigrators have a 6+++
All Breachers Heavy Arc Rifles and Arc Claws get an additional hit on a hit roll of 5-6.
Ranged weapons at half range improve AP by 1 or Wrath of Mars with Arc weapons against vehicles.
All those extra Breachers melee attacks AP increases to -3 on a wound roll of a 6 or give them a 5+++ + their melee attacks can be re-rolled.
+6" range and RR1s + Daedalosus hanging around for +1 to hit against something
All without strategms...and that's without the other tools for auto passing morale or allowing a vehicle to fall back and shoot.
The biggest challenge is keeping things in range of those HO warlord traits lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I was just trying to think how the cognis rule would translate to 9th...I reckon our vehicles with cognis weapons will be able to fire into engagement range without the -1 penalty to heavy weapons.
Seems likely that the Cognis overwatch strat gives us a second way to overwatch anyway. Cognis would have been about lessening movement penalties. But seeing as all cognis equipped units are vehicles they all ignore that anyway. Maybe it allows us to advance and fire at -1? Kind of the same as it is in 8th but less of a penalty because vehicles no longer have that inbuilt movement penalty.
Do we know which of our weapons are going be blast weapons? Because looking at 9E, it seems like blast weapons will be a penalty; they penalize large units so much that nobody is going to be running anything but MSUs. (Even stuff like Robots, Ballistarii, and Kataphrons are going to be in blocks of 5.)
Suzuteo wrote: Do we know which of our weapons are going be blast weapons? Because looking at 9E, it seems like blast weapons will be a penalty; they penalize large units so much that nobody is going to be running anything but MSUs. (Even stuff like Robots, Ballistarii, and Kataphrons are going to be in blocks of 5.)
Id say: Belleros, Neutron Laser, Eradication Weaponry, Kataphron Plasma. Knightwise Thermal, RFBC.
I dont think missiles and rockets will be effected ( except bigger ones).
Flamers will probably have a pseudo Blast that will be get some different kind of additional rules maybe ignore cover, always overwatch and are still usable in melee for vehicles.
On a different note. I wonder if knights will be worth it. I liked to run a single knight which will now cost 5 cp with relics etc.
as of right now im saying no. 5cp is harsh but if you want house benefits and a couple armigers its 8cp! like what the heck? Pretty much everyone in my area agrees: we hate the new LoW restrictions and are expecting it to change fairly quick. Even the mono-knight player is upset. GW is basically acting like LoW's are some unkillable godly powerhouse. When in reality most LoW's kinda suck, they tend to die to half their cost in anti-tank pretty reliably.
Are we taking into account the domino effects though?
We know there will be points changes, coherency changes, morale changes, objective changes, terrain changes, and a slew of other little nitpicky things that haven't been revealed or addressed, all that add up to changing the validity of a LOT of things.
I'm not trying to predict a future I cant predict, and Im certainly not trying to homer for rulestesters and pretend like they're never wrong, but I do think it's possible (if not plausible) that LOW units will be less of a squishy points sink and could justify that crazy cp cost.
Also cps and generation work differently too, so it's no longer such a huge burden to spend them.
Yeah, but one thing we do know is they arent relieving stratagem use pressure. We will still want to burn multiple stratagems a turn, some of them being 2cp.
They've made no mention about baking certain stratagems into units and removing them, which they should do because a good deal of them should be base unit rules (striders' advance rules for example).
We know how much cp were gonna get, and we know how massively expensive a LoW is to even field let alone use optimally via strats.
I enjoyed using Preceptors with a couple melee armigers around, it wasnt ridiculously powerful but it was decently so. Im not burning 8 cp to bring it when i need to reserve 2cp on top of that to potentially sneak an extra turn with the knight via Taranis strat after it "dies" - that leaves me a measily 3cp to start the game with. 3. Too expensive.
Which really only infuriates me because i bought into admech primarily as an excuse to run a knight, as i loved the model and i dont own any guard or marines. Admech are fun on their own but when the main reason you bought the army suddenly becomes trash, even if you have many other options that are good, you still tend to get salty
It happens i brought my skitarii army because the whole army could scout and i wanted a mobile shooty army not a gunline and i wasn't intereste in characters..... but editions change
U02dah4 wrote: It happens i brought my skitarii army because the whole army could scout and i wanted a mobile shooty army not a gunline and i wasn't intereste in characters..... but editions change
It wasn't "editions change". It was them shoehorning us in with Cult.
i get that. 100% hate how tau work in 8th for instance but i had a blast with them in 7th (no i didnt riptide spam or do the eldar shenanigans in 6th, i ran piranhas and big firewarrior blobs mostly. It was common to see me with 2 ethereals, max firewarriors, and a cadre). Admech are still fun and engaging. Just suddenly cant realistically use the bigdaddy model.
Which i should be used to being an ork player. Stompa hasnt be usable in decades lol
Vineheart01 wrote: as of right now im saying no. 5cp is harsh but if you want house benefits and a couple armigers its 8cp! like what the heck?
Pretty much everyone in my area agrees: we hate the new LoW restrictions and are expecting it to change fairly quick. Even the mono-knight player is upset.
GW is basically acting like LoW's are some unkillable godly powerhouse. When in reality most LoW's kinda suck, they tend to die to half their cost in anti-tank pretty reliably.
Not really
I take a low of war detatchment a questoris and two armigers and make the questoris your warlord your now paying 3CP for an admech battalion or 2CP for a patrol depending on what units you want you also have lots of scope to invest more heavily in knights or the admech portion of your list. You could still do that and run 1250ish pts of admech
Its you now have to invest more heavily in knights than a single model but then back in 7th id run two knights in a warcon and there were no armigers
Only problem i can see is if you want to run that list and try for admech monofaction but thats down to the ITC
What probably wont work is that and a cawl gunline but most knight + admech list were stygies anyway
hmm, missed that one.
That would be a possible choice. Lose 1 of our admech warlord trait auras (i am not working under the assumption that strat was intended to be repeatable until i see a faqlol) but if you're running a knight its less of an issue.
This last half a page of discussion is a bunch of misinformation.
Starting with blast weapons, they've stated in streams that ranged weapons with random numbers of shots that do not automatically hit are blast weapons. It's literally reversing the transition from blast templates to D# shots.
You can take a single Knight with a trait/relic for 4CP, and that's okay. That's roughly the cost you'd pay for any other detachment+stratagem.
Anything more than a single Knight, and you're strongly incentivized to make them your Warlord to refund the cost. Which makes some sense, the bare minimum Gallant+2 Warglaives is already 700 points (likely to be 800+ in 9th). If it's more than half your points, it should probably be your "main" faction.
For myself, I plan to fold my supporting AdMech down to a Patrol with 2 Warlord traits for 4CP. Essentially I give up one heavy support slot that I'd probably have to cut due to point increases anyway. Going up to 2000 points or more and I'd pay the 1 more CP to make it a Battalion and get my extra Dunecrawler and third HQ.
I expect most lists in 9th are going to take an additional patrol detachment, often of a different subfaction to maximize bonuses.
Vineheart01 wrote: hmm, missed that one.
That would be a possible choice. Lose 1 of our admech warlord trait auras (i am not working under the assumption that strat was intended to be repeatable until i see a faqlol) but if you're running a knight its less of an issue.
Aren't all the other 'extra warlord trait' strategms repeatable? The knight one certainly is.
For anyone not keeping up there was also a massive change to unit coherency and a unit coherency check at the end of morale that removes units as destroyed if they are not in unit coherency. Units of size 6 and up now also must have 2 other models from he same squad within 2" to be considered within coherency. So no more days chaining massive blobs across the map unless you fancy removing a 30 model unit down to 5 from killing one model lol
Vineheart01 wrote: hmm, missed that one.
That would be a possible choice. Lose 1 of our admech warlord trait auras (i am not working under the assumption that strat was intended to be repeatable until i see a faqlol) but if you're running a knight its less of an issue.
Aren't all the other 'extra warlord trait' strategms repeatable? The knight one certainly is.
Ours is too, but Vineheart is concerned the Engine War traits are so strong that GW intended we could only take one. I'd counter that proposal by saying compared to other factions our Warlord traits (and Relics) are so weak that we otherwise wouldn't take any besides Monitor Marvelous.
Knight one i never batted an eye at because they only have at most 4 models that can really benefit, plus most of them kinda suck outside the 4++ anyway. But isnt all the other extra warlord traits strats that came through PAs limited to once a game? I only got admech, knights, and orks and orks didnt get such an ability (which im slightly annoyed at i was highly anticipating that but whatever kustomjobs ftw)
More talking about the strat being limited not the new traits. I.e. normal warlord takes one, 1cp another random dude takes one, cant take any more. Not sure if i'd want all 4 but i could easily see 3 being valid. Especially since they give our 30pt HQs something to do for once lol
DarkHound wrote: This last half a page of discussion is a bunch of misinformation.
Starting with blast weapons, they've stated in streams that ranged weapons with random numbers of shots that do not automatically hit are blast weapons. It's literally reversing the transition from blast templates to D# shots.
Got a timestamp/link for that?
Because as far as I'm aware, they have not said "ranged weapons with random numbers of shots that do not automatically hit are blast weapons". They've said that there's a table of weapons that are Blast in the core rulebook. I believe they've also put an exact number of how many there are out there(I want to say it was in the 170s?) and that a significant amount of them are those with random numbers of shots.
The new coherency rules are going to make Hoplites and Fulgurites a pain to move around. Assuming the rules for pile-in and such stay the same it'll be hard to keep a unit of 10+ in full coherency while engaged. It may get harder to have all of our models in engagement range to strike, too, depending on the position of the enemy unit and terrain.
So far it doesn't look like the edition where I'll finally buy Hoplites with how nerfed combat looks to be. As well as 5+ models units. We'll definitely want to keep MSU for our infantry, and never go above 5 for other models.
Just did tests actually and as long as we keep them base to base or at least very close, we can still keep them in a line in coherency with 2 models. Same for the Riders, if anyone intends on running a 5+ unit. Severely reduces our screening and wrapping capability this way though, and also there's still Blast weapons to think about.
DarkHound wrote: This last half a page of discussion is a bunch of misinformation.
Starting with blast weapons, they've stated in streams that ranged weapons with random numbers of shots that do not automatically hit are blast weapons. It's literally reversing the transition from blast templates to D# shots.
Got a timestamp/link for that?
Because as far as I'm aware, they have not said "ranged weapons with random numbers of shots that do not automatically hit are blast weapons". They've said that there's a table of weapons that are Blast in the core rulebook. I believe they've also put an exact number of how many there are out there(I want to say it was in the 170s?) and that a significant amount of them are those with random numbers of shots.
This June 10th stream at the 7:40 mark. "Pretty much anything with a range, that you roll to hit with, and random number of attacks."
Vineheart01 wrote: But isnt all the other extra warlord traits strats that came through PAs limited to once a game? I only got admech, knights, and orks and orks didnt get such an ability (which im slightly annoyed at i was highly anticipating that but whatever kustomjobs ftw)
Those that do clearly specify "This stratagem can only be used once per game" as the last line of the stratagem. For example, Militarum Tempestus' "Progeny of Conflict". Even Space Marine's "Hero of the Chapter", which is a main book codex, not a PA, specifies that line. If it doesn't specify once per game, it's free to use repeatedly. I'll probably take 2 PA traits in addition to Monitor Marvelous (which is basically free CPs).
There's an argument to be made for a Cybernetica Datasmith to get a third Warlord trait in an allied Patrol (though perhaps not a great one without Robots) without spending an extra CP to get a Battalion. That's 5CP to maximize stacking buffs on something like a horde of Robots, Disintegrators, or Ironstriders taken as an ally to another army.
Concerning the Lord of War changes, I am actually rather supportive of them. Massed super-heavies are imbalancing; they are the flip side of horde armies. They force people to prepare for an extreme scenario, which makes TAC lists less viable. In fact, for a while, we did not have any good TAC lists in the meta, just dominant strategies like Knights, Eldar flyer/bike spam, etc. Even we went to Breacher spam and then Boat spam.
The result of all of this are matchups that are mostly just drawn-out, non-interactive games.
Now, most Marine lists are TAC, but they only got to where they are because they were meta-breakingly OP. Which I think was permitted precisely because they knew they were going to move to 9E, which would reset the points scale and meta; they also pretty much stopped Centurion and Repulsor/CharDread spam. By forcing everyone to take more balanced lists along the lines of Marine lists, they allow for a more balanced, diverse, and interactive meta.
You can take a single Knight with a trait/relic for 4CP, and that's okay. That's roughly the cost you'd pay for any other detachment+stratagem.
Anything more than a single Knight, and you're strongly incentivized to make them your Warlord to refund the cost. Which makes some sense, the bare minimum Gallant+2 Warglaives is already 700 points (likely to be 800+ in 9th). If it's more than half your points, it should probably be your "main" faction.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't doomsaying, but be realistic - if you were running a single auxilary knight, you took relic andWLT. Without household traits you needed to in order to get the bang for your buck pointwise, the CP was always worth it. With that investment cost more than doubled, people still running a lone knight alongside their armies rightfully should be looking very hard at what their lists in 9th might look like without one. I am tentatively hopeful it will still be, if not competitive, a choice that isn't outright crippling for an AM army.
And yes of course, bringing additional Knights it then becomes a no brainer - take the superheavy detachment discount, and just pay for the +WLT engine war strat to come out at 4 CP vs. 5, AM doesn't really have any sincerely game changing relics so we aren't missing out there.
Vineheart01 wrote: Think it was the Gallant but according to a betatester he costs 3920pts XD
(obvious typo as the others were around 450 he said)
That's less than a 10% bump, which is promising. That lines up with the Combat Patrol article which specified Knights would be able to participate at 500 points. That implies Armigers won't be over 166 points base (also within 10%), since the smallest legal formation is 3 of them. They probably won't even have that much of an increase, given they don't get much play as is.
I'm biased since I like Warglaives, but a relative points cost reduction, a relatively cheap CP cost for their detachment, and the new stuff in Engine War, may make Armiger hordes a serious consideration. Especially true for Warglaives as a melee supplement for a vehicle heavy AdMech list. You take 3 or 4 of them for 3CP and, I will tell you, Pack Tactics is disgusting.
I do feel a bit sorry for Thousand Sons and Death Guard (don't give a crap about Ultramarines lol) who now have to pay 3CP to include their Primach. I mean they're both powerful models, so perhaps they should be paid for the same way you pay for additional knights. It just feels thematically wrong.
Yeah my roommate was extremely salty about that. Finally bit the bullet and got Magnus, painted him up, loves using him despite not really being that great, and suddenly looks like its impossible to use him effectively. I dont think we've seen the supreme detachment cost yet though. It might still be good.
So it looks like our Plasmas on destroyers are blast now....interesting....thats one of the few weapons that isnt meant for hordes that could easily translate to dealing with them since the base profile is only 1 damage. Lol im imagining a squad of 6 not having a better target due to LoS or something getting 36 shots automatically against a squad of 20 cultists. Not optimal, but LoS is gonna be a bigger thing so might come up alot
Honestly I don't believe blast weapons are really going to matter that much. It looks like they're nerfing hordes so much we'll end up paying extra for a rule we'll never use on our guns. I also don't like some of these weapons going Blast, namely the Neutron Laser and Eradication Beamer. What's the point of being able to shoot in CC with our vehicles if they can only do so with the Cognis Stubber ? Same thing for the Belleros cannon and Icarus Rocket Pod (not sure if it's our Icarus, my rules are in French). At least the Dunerider and Robots are benefitting from this, I think Kastelans that can shoot in CC is one of the biggest improvements.
Oh yea there was no way Culverins weren't going to be Blast. They're going to be an excellent all-rounder unit - Vehicles, Elites, Hordes, they can do it all.
The morale change is big enough to counter most (keyword, most) blast weapons being stronger.
Issue before: 30 boyz get shot to hell, only 10 remain. No nearby other boyz or boss so LD10 with a -20 on a D6 test, auto fail for all 10 they flee unless you burn 2cp. Morale now: A roll of a 1 will still pass despite that insane number loss, and even if it does fail only 1 flees automatically the rest you roll 9D6 for and for every 1-2 another flees (less than half strength +1 to that roll). Odds are heavy that about 3-5 boyz and the nob is still around.
Theres a lot of math in the ork thread about this. Blast except on things that have a LOT of D6's rolled barely gain anything (Wyvern for example kills 2 more boyz than currently on average, but morale suffrage is low enough to counter that)
Squads of 6 and squads of 11-12 will probably disappear because you arent really gaining anything by poking into that threshold, but squads of 20-30 will still be around. I imagine nobody will ever run a 6th dakkabot now unless youre running 2x5 or something. (lol 10 dakkabots wow)
Plasma Culverines are the main thing with blast i can think of that would still fire at hordes and have the high enough rate of fire to just delete them outright. Theres others, but most of them i wouldnt be upset if people shot them at my boyz.
Yeah the Morale change is good I believe, but the coherency rules are scaring lots of horde players so far. Coupled with the new activation mechanics to earn VPs that seems to be encouraging MSU (since a unit can't do much while activating) and the Blast weapons that's a lot of negatives for hordes.
I'm sad because I like to run my Vanguards by units of 6-8, but no way I'm running them at this size now, they died way too easily in 8th, not going to have them killed even easier now.
Heavy Stubbers
Autocannons
Lascannons
Heavy Phosphor Blasters
Icarus Arrays (yeah, the whole thing)
Ferrumite cannon
That we can fire into combat on our vehicles. I haven't included Phosphor Serpenta and radium jezails because, well there really is no point in them now Dragoons can attack stuff on ruins
Aaranis wrote: Yeah the Morale change is good I believe, but the coherency rules are scaring lots of horde players so far. Coupled with the new activation mechanics to earn VPs that seems to be encouraging MSU (since a unit can't do much while activating) and the Blast weapons that's a lot of negatives for hordes.
I'm sad because I like to run my Vanguards by units of 6-8, but no way I'm running them at this size now, they died way too easily in 8th, not going to have them killed even easier now.
Coherency rules are fine just layer your models 2 deep like bricks - or for models with smaller bases a single line in base contact - Its a change but face it who really liked tenticals or 1unit covering a quarter of the table
CULT MECHANICUS BONUS ROUND!!!!
Eradication Ray
Short Range Heavy 1
Long Range Heavy 1, Blast
Plasma Culverin Heavy 2, Blast, Gets Hot
Spoiler:
That wording up at the top is important to keep in consideration. If we end up getting a bit more solid design work done on our stuff, we could be back to Eradicationing in combat with a Short Range profile.
Aaranis wrote: Yeah the Morale change is good I believe, but the coherency rules are scaring lots of horde players so far. Coupled with the new activation mechanics to earn VPs that seems to be encouraging MSU (since a unit can't do much while activating) and the Blast weapons that's a lot of negatives for hordes.
I'm sad because I like to run my Vanguards by units of 6-8, but no way I'm running them at this size now, they died way too easily in 8th, not going to have them killed even easier now.
Coherency rules are fine just layer your models 2 deep like bricks - or for models with smaller bases a single line in base contact - Its a change but face it who really liked tenticals or 1unit covering a quarter of the table
Ah I don't like conga lines neither, my point was that blast weapons won't see much use because we'll rarely face big blocks, because of the disadvantages I listed. I said earlier how Raiders and our 25mm infantry will still be able to stay comfortably in cohesion.
I don't see big blocks of Kataphrons continuing to exist as they do though, unless you invest in massive protection on them with the defensive options we have. Eating a full Knight's Battle Cannon to the face will hurt a lot.
Aaranis wrote: Yeah the Morale change is good I believe, but the coherency rules are scaring lots of horde players so far. Coupled with the new activation mechanics to earn VPs that seems to be encouraging MSU (since a unit can't do much while activating) and the Blast weapons that's a lot of negatives for hordes.
I'm sad because I like to run my Vanguards by units of 6-8, but no way I'm running them at this size now, they died way too easily in 8th, not going to have them killed even easier now.
Coherency rules are fine just layer your models 2 deep like bricks - or for models with smaller bases a single line in base contact - Its a change but face it who really liked tenticals or 1unit covering a quarter of the table
Ah I don't like conga lines neither, my point was that blast weapons won't see much use because we'll rarely face big blocks, because of the disadvantages I listed. I said earlier how Raiders and our 25mm infantry will still be able to stay comfortably in cohesion.
I don't see big blocks of Kataphrons continuing to exist as they do though, unless you invest in massive protection on them with the defensive options we have. Eating a full Knight's Battle Cannon to the face will hurt a lot.
I'm planning on running 3 x 4 Breachers and 3 x 4 Raiders in my planned list for exactly those reasons. if I ever go primarily to 2000pt matches it'll probably be 3 x 5 raiders and 3 x 4 breachers with 1 x 4/5 Destroyers as well. And I always run 4 x autocannon ballistarii. Ideally now i'd like to run 3 detachments one for the half range cognis boost, one for the assault and charge bonus and one for the arc weapon bonus. But that'll only come if I go to 2k points as i'd need way more Autocannon Basliatrii to make putting them in their own detachment worth it.
Not sure yet whether my Pteraxii gonna be a blob of 10 or two lots of 5, the loss of a main weapon on the Alpha for both variants is a pain in the ass, same with Sulphurhounds. Raider alpha surprisingly gets a pistol AND a galvanic carbine and all the stuff a regular Raider gets. All the others seem to be short-changed in some way, missing main weapons and close combat weapons. I'm also expecting when they faq/errata the HPB back to 15 pts for the Phosphor Blast Carbine to go to 1 or two points which will absolutely make it worth taking on Sulphurhounds and make them a much punchier option over Raiders mobility and versatility.
Robots...meh I cant see how I'll ever fit them in if they remain at 110pts, Just too expensive and require too much support to make them good.
Kataphrons and Kastellans had Mindlock like servitors to improve their BS and WS that would give us a real reason to field our HQs and the data smith other than just aura bots.
So basically free extra HQ slot for everybody and marines/daemons still get to use their primarchs w/o spending a billion CP or axing army-wide rules. But...pretty much means the armies with a regular LoW are hosed for sure now. I dont see a reason to ever not use this detachment as its literally a free HQ slot, just HAS to be the warlord in there. Its also a cheesy way to sneak a canticle into a different dogma lol (Mars warlord, Stygies army)
Unless Cawl gets the Supreme Commander keyword, we can't use that detachment anyway. Good for other factions, they get to use their toys, not really relevant for us.
Oh right now i remember what that was.
For some reason i was seeing that as the Tau's "The Eight" category and that specific limitations mentioned were for the LoW half alone.
Forgot, Ghazzy has that Supreme Commander rule. Derp.
I need to stop talking today i have been fudging way too much up lol. Today is not my day.
DarkHound wrote: Unless Cawl gets the Supreme Commander keyword, we can't use that detachment anyway. Good for other factions, they get to use their toys, not really relevant for us.
I would assume he'll get the Supreme Commander keyword.
DarkHound wrote: Unless Cawl gets the Supreme Commander keyword, we can't use that detachment anyway. Good for other factions, they get to use their toys, not really relevant for us.
I would assume he'll get the Supreme Commander keyword.
If he gets proper rules he might become scary again and shouldnt be tied to mars which goes against his fluff.
-You can move over 1" or less terrain as if it were not there
-Cannot keep one die when rerolling charges.
-Transports got nerfed; you have to disembark wholly within 3" unless you use the generic stratagem, which changes it to 6" and makes disembarking units immune to explode, but doubles the chance that it is slain. Good thing we have Evacuation Sequence, which prevents a disembarking unit from being slain. No charging or heroic intervention after disembarking as well.
-You can run less models than needed for an MSU; this is an Understrength Unit (USU?) and has the same power level as an MSU. (But it apparently breaks battle-forged, so not worth it.)
-Cannot recycle CP before battle or at the end of any round
Oh man, new secondary objectives and missions got leaked too. My initial impression was with pure Knights in mind, and while they can't participate in most objectives, they can easily max several (Attrition, Engage on All Fronts, Bring It Down). More 'normal' armies have more options but a harder time achieving max points, so I'm still processing it for AdMech, allied with Knights or otherwise.
I don't think there are obvious, maximum-scoring picks in vacuum, which probably means they're well designed. Obviously you take a Purge the Enemy that suits your opponent's list.
I think While We Stand We Fight is an interesting pick, since we can repair our expensive units. Cawl will usually survive if you make it a priority. Hugely buffed Breacher or Destroyer squads suddenly become an objective-in-themselves, and it seems like the Aggrippina respawn Stratagem will let them get full value. Otherwise, I could see max-size Kastelan Robots being relatively hard to remove.
Abhor the Witch is a good pocket pick since we don't have Psychers of our own.
I'm very seriously considering taking Servitors to complete Shadow Operations secondaries. Especially Raise The Banners High and Investigate Sites, which just prevents the unit from doing any fighting and can't be interrupted by your opponent.
-You can move over 1" or less terrain as if it were not there
-Cannot keep one die when rerolling charges.
-Transports got nerfed; you have to disembark wholly within 3" unless you use the generic stratagem, which changes it to 6" and makes disembarking units immune to explode, but doubles the chance that it is slain. Good thing we have Evacuation Sequence, which prevents a disembarking unit from being slain. No charging or heroic intervention after disembarking as well.
I think you missed a bit, the rules in this leak state that a unit that has disembarked can act normally. The specifically note move, shoot, charge, and only state that if you choose not to move, you still count as moving.
As an additional thought, or rather a correction to a brainfart I had, I was really worried about the Supreme Command detachment. It costs 0Cp for a Primarch, Demon Primarch, or Supreme Commander, and then gives you CP equal to your largest detachment. It seemed like a no brainer, you get more CP if you take one of these guys... but then again, they universally require you make them warlord, which means your warlord isnt in your biggest detachment, so that detachment still costs CP instead of balancing out as per the rules of needing a warlord in the detachment to equal 0CP, so this more or less negates that CP loss.
Still makes taking one of those characters useful, but it's not like just throwing free CP around for anyone putting Mortarion on the table.
I think While We Stand We Fight is an interesting pick, since we can repair our expensive units. Cawl will usually survive if you make it a priority. Hugely buffed Breacher or Destroyer squads suddenly become an objective-in-themselves, and it seems like the Aggrippina respawn Stratagem will let them get full value. Otherwise, I could see max-size Kastelan Robots being relatively hard to remove.
While We Stand We Fight has a bizarre wording choice of "three most expensive models", not "units", so any multi-model unit is unlikely to include eligible nominations vs. any vehicles you might have included.
The only transport no disembark and charge or heroic intervention is for when the transport was destroyed that turn.
Which is a current rule added in the last big faq. If overwatch destroys the transport, the occupants cant charge.
DarkHound wrote: I think While We Stand We Fight is an interesting pick, since we can repair our expensive units. Cawl will usually survive if you make it a priority. Hugely buffed Breacher or Destroyer squads suddenly become an objective-in-themselves, and it seems like the Aggrippina respawn Stratagem will let them get full value. Otherwise, I could see max-size Kastelan Robots being relatively hard to remove.
While We Stand We Fight has a bizarre wording choice of "three most expensive models", not "units", so any multi-model unit is unlikely to include eligible nominations vs. any vehicles you might have included.
Oh, you're absolutely right. I just assumed it was units without thinking. Yeah, in that case the rule almost always affects only Cawl and our heavy support or aircraft (or any Knights). That seems like paying the opponent to do what they already planned to: silence our big guns. I guess the secondary is for expensive characters, since they can be hidden aren't otherwise a priority to dig out and kill. Anyway, not one that we'll use unless we're super confident they don't have enough anti-tank.
Vineheart01 wrote: The only transport no disembark and charge or heroic intervention is for when the transport was destroyed that turn.
Which is a current rule added in the last big faq. If overwatch destroys the transport, the occupants cant charge.
Gremore wrote: I think you missed a bit, the rules in this leak state that a unit that has disembarked can act normally. The specifically note move, shoot, charge, and only state that if you choose not to move, you still count as moving.
Right, that was my being unclear in my language. After a transport is destroyed.
But it's pretty cool how our Boats can emergency disembark wholly within 6". It's quite the leg up if we're going to play mechanized.
Yeah I agree. Not knowing how points change, the Duneriders are cheap as chips for what they do and with the known vehicle changes pack a little extra punch, with no worry of our boys dying inside if it blows up.
I was reading Tactica Obliqua and what are your guys opinion on this? It says "Use this Stratagem in your opponent’s Charge phase when a SERBERYS RAIDERS unit from your army is chosen as the target of a charge for the first time that turn. Instead of firing Overwatch, that unit can move or Fall Back as if it were your Movement phase (it cannot Advance as part of this move)."
Would the Raiders now need to spend a CP on Fire Overwatch to then be able to trigger Tactica Obliqua? Or not? As you can only trigger Overwatch with the strat so I dunno how to interpret this for the Raiders stratagem.
The activation requirement is "your opponent's charge phase when the Raiders are targets of a charge". The "Instead of firing Overwatch" clause just prohibits them from firing Overwatch. Now, in 9th, that means you won't be able to pay 1CP to Overwatch and also use Tactica Obliqua.
U02dah4 wrote: The servitor increase is so big because their points were so small to begin with a 40% increase amounts to 8Pts per unit
Yes yes, I'm aware how percentages work The fact that they were increased at all is weird enough. But by two points? They don't gain anything from the move to 9th they're no better than before. I mean its somewhat irrelevant because there's only one build that is using them in the entire game, but by this token, unless they deem us underpowered we're likely to see similar roled units increase by a similar amount. 9 point rangers, 40 point breachers, 150~ point disintigrators with belleros. I really need them to release the points soon, fed up of waiting to buy stuff. I mean I know stuff is always going to change but when it's JUST about to change I dont want to buy 4 boxes of Serbyrus if I can only field half of them in a list.
Our Servitors might get different point values. I read that they got upped because the heavy weapons they could carry in the Astartes codex got new points too, might explain it.
Yeah I can't wait for the points, I really hope there'll be a good leak before the 11th to prepare list building.
5 boxes is a bit weird.
6 boxes imo is the sweet spot because then you can build 3x3 Breachers and Destroyers.
Then you can use the leftover bits from the other box (so if you build destroyers, you have breacher weapon bits left) to use the that weapon mount bits for easy magnetizing for the Grav/Plasma or Torsion/Arc Rifle as well as the lil' side arms.
But that's just me because I wanted the extra armour on the Breachers.
I think the weapons are enough to tell the difference between Breacher and Destroyer. I mean virtually every primaris looks the same only the heads and wargear actually change what they are.
I want to run 3x4 Breachers because they actually do something unlike rangers without snipers. ideally 3x4 Raiders/Sulphurhounds and 10 Pteraxii in some configuration as well but that's a lot of new models to not know the points for. I guess I'm just being impatient, it's not that long to wait really. Only a week or so lol
I'm hesitant to buy anything until I see how the points shake out with our units. I hope Destroyers come down in points quite a bit otherwise Breachers will still beat them at their own game.
I still like rangers for anti-infantry and cheap troops, but 9th might make them obsolete except for spamming their special weapons.
30coins wrote: I was thinking of starting with 3x5 breachers for now (because the 6+ squad would get weird ?)
Do you guys think we will ever see 6+ breacher/ destroyer or even Kastelans ?
The other troops option seems extremely restricted since there is no benefit outside min 5 squad of rangers/vanguard ~ 30 troops for 6 slots
With the new Look Out, Sir! Rule there may be some value in having more than 5 Skitarii in a screening unit. The unit cohesion rules seem to make greater than 5 man Kataphrons a no go as far as I’m concerned. The 60mm bases make 2 inch cohesion problematic.
Abilities
Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be described here
Aura Abilities
Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities. A model with an aura ability is always within range of its effect. The effects of multiple, identically named aura abilities are not cumulative (i.e. if a unit is within range of two models with the same aura ability, that aura ability only applies to the unit once).
So yeah, any rule that belongs to a unit and affects models or units in a given range is an aura ability.
This includes Saviour Protocols, TFC activation, Orders, etc. It probably does not include stratagems or psychic powers because those are not rules specific to the unit's data sheet.
Suzuteo wrote: By the way, auras are pretty much unchanged:
Abilities
Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be described here
Aura Abilities
Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities. A model with an aura ability is always within range of its effect. The effects of multiple, identically named aura abilities are not cumulative (i.e. if a unit is within range of two models with the same aura ability, that aura ability only applies to the unit once).
So yeah, any rule that belongs to a unit and affects models or units in a given range is an aura ability.
This includes Saviour Protocols, TFC activation, Orders, etc. It probably does not include stratagems or psychic powers because those are not rules specific to the unit's data sheet.
Maybe.
The New datasheets have specific (Aura) tag on them for auras, and the Necron Overlord has both a tagged ability (Relentless March), and an untagged ability that would normally qualify as an aura (My Will Be Done).
Three other things I have realized:
1) Engagement range is a cylinder, not a circle. It is 5" tall and 1" radius around the base.
2) After charging units fight, the NON-ACTIVE player fights first. This is a huge boost to counter-chargers such as Fulgurites.
3) The new "as if" rule has no exception for Overwatch, so if your rerolls work outside of the Shooting phase (sad Cawl), then you can reroll them like any shooting attack.
4) Models eligible to fight are within a half-inch of a model within a half-inch of the enemy. So 25mm and 32mm units can only stack 2 ranks deep.
The New datasheets have specific (Aura) tag on them for auras, and the Necron Overlord has both a tagged ability (Relentless March), and an untagged ability that would normally qualify as an aura (My Will Be Done).
This would be helpful, but it will be some time before we get to the point where we can say something is an aura if it is keyworded as such.
Going to address the response to me first: We will have to wait and see with the rounds of FAQs. If Auras are given Tags as errata we will have some more certainty, if not..
3: New "as if" rules has no bearing on new "overwatch"; overwatch is not as if anything, just "resolved like a normal shooting attack" so no exceptions for overwatch are needed.
4: This change gets really Goofy with some situations(and engagement range being larger). Take a situation with 3 models, one is within 1/2", the next to the right is within 3/4", and the third is within 1 1/16" of the enemy and within 1/16" of the second; the first two are within engagement range and so can fight but the third is slightly just outside and nearly touching the second but cannot fight. if you could get a fourth on the far right to within 1/2" of both the enemy and model that cannot fight, then he could fight.
It is just really strange to have the closest model required to be well within engagement range.
SM Plasma inceptors got 15 % cheaper in 9th and are now only 2 points more expensive than our Destroyers with:
Better armor, hit better, 2d3 instead of 1d6 plasma, more attacks with a chance for MW on a charge, deepstrike, more movement and fly.
0XFallen wrote: SM Plasma inceptors got 15 % cheaper in 9th and are now only 2 points more expensive than our Destroyers with:
Better armor, hit better, 2d3 instead of 1d6 plasma, more attacks with a chance for MW on a charge, deepstrike, more movement and fly.
So id assume ours should become cheaper too.
Using that logic, Space Marine Eradicators have the same T5 3w 3+ save stat line as our Kataphron Breachers with torsion cannons, and have the same 24” range, 1 shot, Str8 Dd6 profile but also get the melta damage rule, shoot twice, and a BS3 instead of our BS4 and currently cost the same 40 points per model, so I’d like to assume they should become cheaper as well.
Unfortunately, I’m guessing instead that GW will just grossly favor Space Marines, based on past experience. I like your optimism though!
Aaranis wrote: Yeah I don't expect any other faction to be balanced with Marines to be honest
I think most shouldnt be balanced like them, they are clearly op with really good stats on even small and spammed weaponry that the only way to have something stronger is to add attacks, which they clearly do as they have plenty like the bikes having 6-7 attacks. Everyong compares their army to the posterboys, I wonder if we ignore them and compare to the other factions only, then maybe it will seem more balanced.
I currently only have the old start collecting box - my plan was to get two of the new ones and use the 3 together as the basis of a small Ad Mech army. However I've found somewhere that still has one of the old ones on sale.
I know everything is a bit up in the air with 9th on the horizon, but in general would I be better off with 2 Dunecrawlers and 1 Disintegrator/Dunestrider, or the other way round? I feel having two of the tanks gives a bit more flexibility?
edit: just realised i also want some Kastelan Robots, so 2 Dune Crawlers would then mean I couldn't fit a Disintegrator into a battalion
Aaranis wrote: Yeah I don't expect any other faction to be balanced with Marines to be honest
I think most shouldnt be balanced like them, they are clearly op with really good stats on even small and spammed weaponry that the only way to have something stronger is to add attacks, which they clearly do as they have plenty like the bikes having 6-7 attacks. Everyong compares their army to the posterboys, I wonder if we ignore them and compare to the other factions only, then maybe it will seem more balanced.
Well when Aeldari players compare their Swooping Hawks to our Pteraxii they must feel left out too
But otherwise you're right, Marines don't play on the same level in 8th or 9th too I'd wager. I'll play one or two games against them and see how it goes before I decide not to play against them for sake of having fun in my games.
Shooter wrote:I currently only have the old start collecting box - my plan was to get two of the new ones and use the 3 together as the basis of a small Ad Mech army. However I've found somewhere that still has one of the old ones on sale.
I know everything is a bit up in the air with 9th on the horizon, but in general would I be better off with 2 Dunecrawlers and 1 Disintegrator/Dunestrider, or the other way round? I feel having two of the tanks gives a bit more flexibility?
edit: just realised i also want some Kastelan Robots, so 2 Dune Crawlers would then mean I couldn't fit a Disintegrator into a battalion
I think the new SC with the boats will serve you better, as you can make use of Enginseers easier than more Domini. Concerning the Onager/Disintegrator dillemma, I'd pick the Disintegrator as he can fulfill the same role as an Onager with Neutron Laser if you use the Ferrumite Cannon. But the Belleros is a way more popular choice of weapon given it shoots without LoS.
But I'd wait to be on the 11th to have the points values of everything before buying/building if I were you.
Thing is marines are supposed to be the defacto average, not great not bad, the baseline. Historically you compare every choice to a standard machine choice to determine its overall balance. Feels like we cant really do that any more as Primaris are clearly more like custodes now than regular marines.
Yeah they're supposed to be the jack-of-all-trades of armies, being a generalist faction that can do everything well enough and have lists that can be built around a theme. Other factions are supposed to be more specialists in their own field. Aeldari with Psykers, Death Guard for attrition, Astra Militarum for mechanised warfare, Tyranids for swarms of melee units... Problem is when they wrote the codex 2.0 of Marines and decided they should just be better than everyone in every field and the rest can be a NPC faction.
And this really breaks the game for me, now that I'm calculating the efficiency/lethality of an AdMech unit I feel forced to compare it to MEQ and so the results disappoint me all the time.
By the way if that's interesting to anyone, a barebones Sulphurhounds unit vs a MEQ does the following amount of damage (units are Wounds):
Shooting: 2,62 with flamers + 0,66 with pistols + 0,22 with blast pistol = 3,5 wounds
Melee: 0,66 for normal riders + 0,55 for Alpha = 1,21 wounds
So a round of shooting + a successful charge on an Intercessor squad results in a whopping 4,71 wounds off on average. 57 pts of Sulphurhounds kills 34 pts of Intercessors this way (with 8th values).
If you compare yourself to the best performing faction shocker you don't perform as well.
If you select one of the more efficient units from the best performing faction (thats in the majority of competative lists) and compare it to one of our weaker units it doesn't perform as well (I'm astounded) we are not marines so don't compare as one
We have 3 options
Cult mechanicus - aka the castle - Hope for planet bowling ball take 3/4 nice new Wl traits sit in a circle round cawl and daedalosus or a stygies dominous and attempt to shoot the enemy to oblivion with massed overlapped buff sure our unitd might not be as efficient on their own but when you add+1 to hit and reroll misses and add extra AP and shots on 6's surprisingly efficiency improves substantially its therefore not a simple A VS B comparison.
Skittari - the horde - given canticles and our army having cover for 2-3 turns irrespective of terrain our infantry are more durable for their pts than SM. tons of vanguard on an objective are quite tough to shift so why not play the objectives and survive - we have raiders to snipe characters and delay the enemy or grab midfield objectives and corpuscarii/hoplites got hugely buffed between engine war and reserves. - let SM shoot us off the table but if we have racked up enough VP we still win. Its about board control with this list not shooting power
Knights + Mechanicus - primarily knights but supported by our best units to score some objectives and buff some of the strongest units in the game. Mechanicus are a force multiplier for the knights repairing them granting canticles and cheaply securing backfield objectives while the knights move on your opponents. Again the mechanicus portion adds a lot of value - but the enginseer repairing a knight isnt best measured by the awesome shooting of its las pistol
Aaranis wrote: Yeah they're supposed to be the jack-of-all-trades of armies, being a generalist faction that can do everything well enough and have lists that can be built around a theme. Other factions are supposed to be more specialists in their own field. Aeldari with Psykers, Death Guard for attrition, Astra Militarum for mechanised warfare, Tyranids for swarms of melee units... Problem is when they wrote the codex 2.0 of Marines and decided they should just be better than everyone in every field and the rest can be a NPC faction.
And this really breaks the game for me, now that I'm calculating the efficiency/lethality of an AdMech unit I feel forced to compare it to MEQ and so the results disappoint me all the time.
By the way if that's interesting to anyone, a barebones Sulphurhounds unit vs a MEQ does the following amount of damage (units are Wounds):
Shooting: 2,62 with flamers + 0,66 with pistols + 0,22 with blast pistol = 3,5 wounds
Melee: 0,66 for normal riders + 0,55 for Alpha = 1,21 wounds
So a round of shooting + a successful charge on an Intercessor squad results in a whopping 4,71 wounds off on average. 57 pts of Sulphurhounds kills 34 pts of Intercessors this way (with 8th values).
Did you take into account the -T debuff from Sulphurhounds? It is a bit of a shame neither of the Serbyrus are particularly good in melee, Sulphurhounds ought to be better but raiders actually have better melee weapons! Though both are held back by the fact that Skitarii hit on 4s in combat, which is also what makes Robots not worth their points as well.
Octovol wrote: Did you take into account the -T debuff from Sulphurhounds? It is a bit of a shame neither of the Serbyrus are particularly good in melee, Sulphurhounds ought to be better but raiders actually have better melee weapons! Though both are held back by the fact that Skitarii hit on 4s in combat, which is also what makes Robots not worth their points as well.
Yeah counted it in melee, with the custom Forge World we might make it so in shooting too with the 3" debuff aura but that's too specific. I'll calculate it either way, so considering they're within 3" with the buffed Irradiation:
Shooting: 3,5 with flamers + 0,88 with pistols + 0,22 with blast pistol = 4,6 wounds, so an increase of 1,1 wounds (31% more) compared to without Irradiation against MEQ.
A 31% boost is great but sending them within 3" of their target will be quite difficult most of the time, even if they charge after on average they'll kill almost 3 Intercessors (4,6 + 1,21 = 5,81w).
Yeah I don't understand either why it isn't the Sulphurhounds that have the cavalry sabres. But the AdMech codex is weird like that. Making Fistelans hit on 4+ with no way to reroll better than 1s to Hit and to Wound for example. I wish they'll update their datasheet in the next codex to make them more viable with the Fists, just making them 3+ to Hit would go a long way.
You do not have to use the 3" extension(that is so the rest of your army can hit harder): the flamers are pistols as well.
That is what makes the sulpherhounds a counter-charge unit. Play them offensively or defensively, and as harassers; they are not the best in the fight phase but still do full potential shooting while engaged(and full -1T damage in shooting while engaged).
Realizing all of the above is what made me decide that having a unit of them is more than acceptable, but I still will not give them the blast carbine.
They just need a rule like the Orks have on their buggies, where they can shoot their pistols in addition to any other weapon. If I lose one pistol and like 14 points to gain those 4 S5 shots then that's alright IMO.
You only lose 1 pistol on one model for taking the blast carbine. If you're Metallica or take the rugged explorers custom Dogma you can still advance and fire at no penalty from range.
Even then you gain 5 shots at str 5 ap-1 over 2 at str 4 and D6 at str 4 and at a greater range. So when firing into combat you lose 1 str 4 pistol shot. But at range your probably better off with the carbine.
Yeah I built one with the carbine because of rule of cool (they're really nice-looking) but only after did I realise how I hindered myself rules-wise. Not only does it cost 15 pts, but I can't shoot it in CC and have to forgo my other pistol (that I pay 1 pt for) and my flamer to use it. Only nice to get a pot shot at a distant target, if you're within 8" you'll always prefer the flamer + pistol.
But I intended on buying a second box to make a unit of 5 so I'll have some flexibility if I want to play a more competitive game. Otherwise it stays this way for friendly games.
EDIT: I hope they won't do a complete 180° with the new point costs concerning our new units. I think the Raiders are a bit too cheap but their retail price evens that out for me haha! But their cheapness and straight-forward use make them a neat addition in our army I think. I don't plan on buying them yet because they're so cheap I'd do like 2 units of 5 or something like that and that'd be costly.
Its 5 str 5 shots at 18" range, or 5 str 4 at 8", and 5 shots at str 4 in combat. Or 6 str 4 shots at at 8" and 6 str 4 shots in combat.
It's not going to end up 15pts, that's a mistake confused with the HPB. It might be more than the 1pt you pay for a standard phosphor pistol, but it adds flexibility at very little cost.
Octovol wrote: Its 5 str 5 shots at 18" range, or 5 str 4 at 8", and 5 shots at str 4 in combat. Or 6 str 4 shots at at 8" and 6 str 4 shots in combat.
It's not going to end up 15pts, that's a mistake confused with the HPB. It might be more than the 1pt you pay for a standard phosphor pistol, but it adds flexibility at very little cost.
What? it is 15 pts for 4 shots @ 24"(well, 14pts because you are not taking the second pistol). But you are either deciding that you want to be >24" away from enemies at the start of your turn/the game, or you are planning to be woefully out of position at multiple points in the game.
The 5 Str5 shots is @12".
You get 1 Str5 and 4 str4 @12 with all pistols.
And within 8" or in combat you get 1 Str5 plus 4 str4 plus 3d6 str4 with all pistols.
Those are all better than 4 str5 @24"(starting up to 36" away), and then losing a Str4 in melee, where you want your rad-saturated riders to be(wounding MEQs on a 3+ with all your shots).
Oh, and cover now applies in melee, so the extra str4 ap-1 pistol still helps.
Octovol wrote: Its 5 str 5 shots at 18" range, or 5 str 4 at 8", and 5 shots at str 4 in combat. Or 6 str 4 shots at at 8" and 6 str 4 shots in combat.
It's not going to end up 15pts, that's a mistake confused with the HPB. It might be more than the 1pt you pay for a standard phosphor pistol, but it adds flexibility at very little cost.
What? it is 15 pts for 4 shots @ 24"(well, 14pts because you are not taking the second pistol). But you are either deciding that you want to be >24" away from enemies at the start of your turn/the game, or you are planning to be woefully out of position at multiple points in the game.
The 5 Str5 shots is @12".
You get 1 Str5 and 4 str4 @12 with all pistols.
And within 8" or in combat you get 1 Str5 plus 4 str4 plus 3d6 str4 with all pistols.
Those are all better than 4 str5 @24"(starting up to 36" away), and then losing a Str4 in melee, where you want your rad-saturated riders to be(wounding MEQs on a 3+ with all your shots).
Oh, and cover now applies in melee, so the extra str4 ap-1 pistol still helps.
Its a mistake. The 15pts listed is likely meant for the HPB, we've been over this a gazillion times by now. It won't stick. As soon as there's an faq or errata HPB will go back up to being 15pts and the mistakenly labelled phosphor blast carbine will go down to whatever they originally intended. Could be 0, could be 1pt but its never going to be 15pts.
My bad, blast carbine is only 4 shots at 24" confused with another weapon.
I'm only comparing per regular hound because only one model in 3 can take a carbine and that's what you'd compare it against. The alpha only gets that 1 blast shot anyway regardless.
No Carbine - For that Hound at 8" you're getting 2 + 1D6 (4 average) str 4 shots whether in combat or not. Or 2 str 4 shots at 12".
With Carbine - For that Hound at 24" you get 4 str 5 shots. At 8" you're on average getting 1 less shot with 1 + 1D6(4) at str 4 or you can still fire your carbine's 4 str 5 shots. In combat, you still get your 1 + 1D6(4) pistol shots at str 4.
You're still going to fire your pistols in combat whether the model has a carbine or not, you just get one less shot if you have the carbine. But WITH the carbine you have the OPTION to fire from much further away with stronger shots for minimal cost.
That might not suit you, but spending whatever the points cost the carbine ends up being to trade a single shot in combat for 4 stronger shots at a much greater range seems like a good trade to me.
Just so we're clear. Nobody is spending 14 more points for the carbine. Thats a mistake. Just like the zero point HPB is a mistake. Its surely not going to be more than the cost of an arc rifle though.
Not a lot of people were going to play between Engine War and 9th anyway, I don't think they'll bother with a FAQ for the point changes, only for the other questions.
Octovol wrote: Its 5 str 5 shots at 18" range, or 5 str 4 at 8", and 5 shots at str 4 in combat. Or 6 str 4 shots at at 8" and 6 str 4 shots in combat.
It's not going to end up 15pts, that's a mistake confused with the HPB. It might be more than the 1pt you pay for a standard phosphor pistol, but it adds flexibility at very little cost.
What? it is 15 pts for 4 shots @ 24"(well, 14pts because you are not taking the second pistol). But you are either deciding that you want to be >24" away from enemies at the start of your turn/the game, or you are planning to be woefully out of position at multiple points in the game.
The 5 Str5 shots is @12".
You get 1 Str5 and 4 str4 @12 with all pistols.
And within 8" or in combat you get 1 Str5 plus 4 str4 plus 3d6 str4 with all pistols.
Those are all better than 4 str5 @24"(starting up to 36" away), and then losing a Str4 in melee, where you want your rad-saturated riders to be(wounding MEQs on a 3+ with all your shots).
Oh, and cover now applies in melee, so the extra str4 ap-1 pistol still helps.
Its a mistake. The 15pts listed is likely meant for the HPB, we've been over this a gazillion times by now. It won't stick. As soon as there's an faq or errata HPB will go back up to being 15pts and the mistakenly labelled phosphor blast carbine will go down to whatever they originally intended. Could be 0, could be 1pt but its never going to be 15pts.
My bad, blast carbine is only 4 shots at 24" confused with another weapon.
I'm only comparing per regular hound because only one model in 3 can take a carbine and that's what you'd compare it against. The alpha only gets that 1 blast shot anyway regardless.
No Carbine - For that Hound at 8" you're getting 2 + 1D6 (4 average) str 4 shots whether in combat or not. Or 2 str 4 shots at 12".
With Carbine - For that Hound at 24" you get 4 str 5 shots. At 8" you're on average getting 1 less shot with 1 + 1D6(4) at str 4 or you can still fire your carbine's 4 str 5 shots. In combat, you still get your 1 + 1D6(4) pistol shots at str 4.
You're still going to fire your pistols in combat whether the model has a carbine or not, you just get one less shot if you have the carbine. But WITH the carbine you have the OPTION to fire from much further away with stronger shots for minimal cost.
That might not suit you, but spending whatever the points cost the carbine ends up being to trade a single shot in combat for 4 stronger shots at a much greater range seems like a good trade to me.
Just so we're clear. Nobody is spending 14 more points for the carbine. Thats a mistake. Just like the zero point HPB is a mistake. Its surely not going to be more than the cost of an arc rifle though.
You are missing the point.
Even 5 pts is too many for a single mid-ranged gun in the unit, that has no synergy with the rest of the model that it is on, let alone the unit. This is the same reason you do not see a 5-man Tac quad with a p-fist sgt and a lascannon. This unit wants and needs to get in close to the enemy unit(s), If you need the longer ranged gun, then you have already been making tactical errors.
that wouldnt stop GW from pricing it like that anyway, only looking at the gun in a vacuum and not whats using it as well as the gun itself to determine its cost.
That was the issue with pretty much all optional upgrades that you couldnt put on the entire unit in previous editions. No matter how good the gun was, it almost always wanted a different role than the rest of the unit so it sucked.
Its less of an issue now because the only way it happens is if mobility or in the case of sulphurhounds access to all your weapons at once comes into play.
Aaranis wrote: Yeah I built one with the carbine because of rule of cool (they're really nice-looking) but only after did I realise how I hindered myself rules-wise. Not only does it cost 15 pts, but I can't shoot it in CC and have to forgo my other pistol (that I pay 1 pt for) and my flamer to use it. Only nice to get a pot shot at a distant target, if you're within 8" you'll always prefer the flamer + pistol.
But I intended on buying a second box to make a unit of 5 so I'll have some flexibility if I want to play a more competitive game. Otherwise it stays this way for friendly games.
EDIT: I hope they won't do a complete 180° with the new point costs concerning our new units. I think the Raiders are a bit too cheap but their retail price evens that out for me haha! But their cheapness and straight-forward use make them a neat addition in our army I think. I don't plan on buying them yet because they're so cheap I'd do like 2 units of 5 or something like that and that'd be costly.
Not that it necessarily helps now, but I modeled one of my Sulphurhounds with the "rifle in holster" bit from the sprue meant for the Raiders, then took one of the hands from the Dunerider kit (it has both a left and right hand that 'rests' ) and it's a perfect in between for me. If I run a carbine, I can point out the guy has the carbine at the side and only one pistol in hand; if I don't run carbine, well the carbine isn't out so whose to say.
It satisfies my local players, no idea how particular a major tourney would be about it.
No, I get it. Sulphurhounds have mainly short-range and in-combat options and you're saying to lose a single-shot pistol in order to gain the option for it to shoot more, stronger, shots at greater range goes against the purpose and role of the unit. I'm saying I disagree, it's one shot lost; A shot you may rarely even get to take given how squishy they are. A unit of 5 or less needs to survive combat in our turn, psychic in opponents turn, potentially shooting in their turn (depending on what you charged) and combat in their turn before they get to shoot in combat. That's if you play to their strengths and get to charge them instead of being charged. Hardly a compromise at all. And certainly not a huge tactical faux pa to lose 1 out of 6 shots within 8" on 1 unit to gain options at a greater distance where the unit otherwise does nothing. It's still capable of fulfilling its role as short-range skirmisher that can tag things in combat without really losing any effectiveness. Not everything has to be so black and white. But if that 1 shot really breaks the master plan then I guess it's not worth it. I like options and flexibility.
Though I confess it slipped my mind that a phosphor blast pistol is currently 5pts, so the carbine version by all rights should be more. Though the blast pistol isn't worth those 5pts anyway, there's no way +1 str is worth 4pts. If that carbIne turns out to be 15pts then I'd have to reconsider and concede its not a good choice. But if I were planning on taking Sulphurhounds; Unlike raiders, they're not all-but-guaranteed to be useful first turn, do nothing outside of 8-12" and are a tad too expensive to use for screening, so having those 4 shots before they get in range would be a welcome addition and gives them some options. Being one of our fastest units they can also get to and sit on an objective if I need them to and still have something to do.
I just need them to do more to justify their increased cost over raiders and their decreased options over Sterylizors.
I guess they're a decent option for spending that 1cp on Overwatch, but the 1cp option Raiders have beats overwatch any day and Sterylizors do the same thing at max charge distance with more utility.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh did anyone notice the lack of servo-skull on the Primaris Techmarine? It could still be something non-admech, but at least the Techmarine is out of the running.
Heavy Support - 333 1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
Alas, I still have not had an opportunity to play it because of the ongoing shelter-in-place here in the States.
But yeah, Boat spam with Ironstriders instead of Crawlers. I actually do think that they are superior now, since you save 3 CP, and you can use said CP to melt vehicles on turn 1.
Ah damn. I thought the maximum was five. I guess I am only taking the Magos WLT then. A pity. To be honest, I am not liking how I have to cram everything into one detachment.
EDIT: On second thought, I have enough points to fit in a Manipulus. A friend has been telling me that a Manipulus with the Artisan WLT is great value. I think I will try it out.
Heavy Support - 333 1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
Suzuteo wrote: Ah damn. I thought the maximum was five. I guess I am only taking the Magos WLT then. A pity. To be honest, I am not liking how I have to cram everything into one detachment.
EDIT: On second thought, I have enough points to fit in a Manipulus. A friend has been telling me that a Manipulus with the Artisan WLT is great value. I think I will try it out.
Heavy Support - 333 1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
Suzuteo wrote: Ah damn. I thought the maximum was five. I guess I am only taking the Magos WLT then. A pity. To be honest, I am not liking how I have to cram everything into one detachment.
EDIT: On second thought, I have enough points to fit in a Manipulus. A friend has been telling me that a Manipulus with the Artisan WLT is great value. I think I will try it out.
Heavy Support - 333 1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
If your wanting extra WL traits you could either take 2 patrols at cost of 2 CP or Take a cybernettica datasmith in an elite slot - sure it can't repair your vehicles and cost 11pt more but it is better in CC has a pistol worth firing and a 2+ sv
Im also thinking that most engine war buffs are very specific, so it might be worth having an additional patrol detachment.
For example. Rad saturated with better radium weapons could be a very good 2nd detachment with daedalosus we don't have a useless hq and can take an additional wlt, vanguards are lethal with ap - 1, and all 4 sicarians still get more survivability.
I dunno... only Magos and Artisan are particularly important for me; exploding 6s to hit and AP1 within half-range. From my testing, these WLTs are pretty much only good for buffing a static gunline. Currently, I am cramming 5 Ironstriders and 3 Grators around Cawl and a Manipulus. Lol.
Heavy Support - 333 1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
It basically drops the Copter and move the Breachers over into a Graia Castle.
Why Graia?
1) 3+/5++/5+++/6++++*
2) Abhor the Witch stratagem
3) +1 CP because our relics suck
4) Daedalosus and Mars Canticle still work; combined with Noospheric Mindlock and RR1 from Dominus, and I can still blast away vehicles
* I am thinking the phrasing of the 9E Ignore Wounds section means Genetor stacks with Refusal to Yield again. It specifically states that effects that "a model can only use one rule to attempt to ignore each wound suffered." Refusal to Yield does not attempt ignore each wound suffered; it triggers when a unit is slain. The timing then is to roll FNP from Genetor up until you are slain, then you roll to see if you Refuse to Yield. (I am supposing none of the 8E FAQ will carry over into 9E, but the errata for our codexes will.)
@Suzuteo
Wouldn't Magos in place of the Artisan be a better choice? Yes, you can fall back and shoot but you have 20 Fulgurites to counter-punch - that's enough IMO. And Magos brings a lot to Belleros in my experience, to the point it is my auto pick Holy Order.
dadamowsky wrote: @Suzuteo
Wouldn't Magos in place of the Artisan be a better choice? Yes, you can fall back and shoot but you have 20 Fulgurites to counter-punch - that's enough IMO. And Magos brings a lot to Belleros in my experience, to the point it is my auto pick Holy Order.
Artisan is to give AP1 for shooting within half range. It helps make the Autocannons and Mortars a lot deadlier.
That said, I usually use the Fulgurites for offense; I push them with the Rangers to grab objectives. The Breachers would be the defensive element in my concept list. The ability to fall back and shoot is a nice Plan B though.
Suzuteo wrote: * I am thinking the phrasing of the 9E Ignore Wounds section means Genetor stacks with Refusal to Yield again. It specifically states that effects that "a model can only use one rule to attempt to ignore each wound suffered." Refusal to Yield does not attempt ignore each wound suffered; it triggers when a unit is slain. The timing then is to roll FNP from Genetor up until you are slain, then you roll to see if you Refuse to Yield. (I am supposing none of the 8E FAQ will carry over into 9E, but the errata for our codexes will.)
It should work like that, but I have a feeling GW will FAQ it like they did with the Electroprists. Still, I don't think it amounts to very much extra durability for multi-wound models. I think you should definitely consider a Data-horde Forgeworld with Trans-node Power Cores with exploding 5 and 6s for their Arc weapons. You lose the Graia +1 CP, but you get the Autocaduceus which you will be using every turn on those cyborgs.
Heavy Support - 333 1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
1x Skorpius Disintegrator - Belleros Energy Cannon
It basically drops the Copter and move the Breachers over into a Graia Castle.
Why Graia?
1) 3+/5++/5+++/6++++*
2) Abhor the Witch stratagem
3) +1 CP because our relics suck
4) Daedalosus and Mars Canticle still work; combined with Noospheric Mindlock and RR1 from Dominus, and I can still blast away vehicles
* I am thinking the phrasing of the 9E Ignore Wounds section means Genetor stacks with Refusal to Yield again. It specifically states that effects that "a model can only use one rule to attempt to ignore each wound suffered." Refusal to Yield does not attempt ignore each wound suffered; it triggers when a unit is slain. The timing then is to roll FNP from Genetor up until you are slain, then you roll to see if you Refuse to Yield. (I am supposing none of the 8E FAQ will carry over into 9E, but the errata for our codexes will.)
Greia explixitly says the wound that slew it is ignored - and as you said you only get one attempt to ignore -the trigger is irrelevant you get one
@U02dah4
Except that was errata'ed out. So unless they republish that FAQ, we can stack them just like we used to.
Here is the errata in question:
Page 95 – Graia: Refusal to Yield
Change the first sentence of rules text to read:
‘Roll a D6 each time a model with this dogma is slain or flees – on a 6 that model refuses to yield; either that model is not slain (and has 1 wound remaining), or that model does not flee.’
Suzuteo is right, unless they either dont reup that faq or forget to add the "faq" that they dont stack they totally stack.
The issue with the old way in the book is you had to make that roll for every single wound like you do for FNP. Except its only triggered upon death, so its a disgustingly weaker FNP.
The faq Suzuteo mentions changed it to always roll 1 die even if you took 10 wounds from a single attack so its actually usable now. Still lackluster overall though.
@Vineheart01
I'm surprised people don't remember that we used to stack Refusal to Yield with FNP. In fact, we did it for longer than we could not. People used to use Graia Fulgurites as counter-chargers because they were so annoying to kill.
As soon as they sed multiple ignores wounds don't stack they couldn't before but some people erroneously sed you could and there were long arguments on ymdc.
so gwfaq'd it for clarity
It couldnt for the same reason as before you can only use 1 method of ignoreing wounds and graia states ignores wound
Random question: I just opened my Copter kit... and holy crap these bases are massive. Are they the same size as an Imperial Knight base?? I ask because I have been using HDF bases with magnets embedded into them for transportation reasons. It says 170x109mm, but I compared it to my HDF Knight base, and it seems to line up. Am I going crazy?
Suzuteo wrote: Random question: I just opened my Copter kit... and holy crap these bases are massive. Are they the same size as an Imperial Knight base?? I ask because I have been using HDF bases with magnets embedded into them for transportation reasons. It says 170x109mm, but I compared it to my HDF Knight base, and it seems to line up. Am I going crazy?
Yup, we can plane-screen better than any Eldar list
Suzuteo wrote: Random question: I just opened my Copter kit... and holy crap these bases are massive. Are they the same size as an Imperial Knight base?? I ask because I have been using HDF bases with magnets embedded into them for transportation reasons. It says 170x109mm, but I compared it to my HDF Knight base, and it seems to line up. Am I going crazy?
Yup, we can plane-screen better than any Eldar list
Except no flyers can screen anymore lol
So, why are we assuming that 9th edition removes all of the previous errata and FAQs again? If the original rule is still there then the errata and faq still stand unless another one comes out to specifically change it.
You still cant land ON the flier base so if theres no space around it its screening for you.
It just doesnt block them from moving around it/through it.
Vineheart01 wrote: You still cant land ON the flier base so if theres no space around it its screening for you.
It just doesnt block them from moving around it/through it.
Minimum move requirement though is gonna make them tough to use for that purpose. How anyone used them due this in the first place seems like more faff than its worth lol
I'm considering pairing back my Serbyrus purchases, cavalry keyword has a whole lot of restrictions that make them fundamentally less useful. I'm not sure what or how many any more. I need to see what happens with Breachers points as they're an infinitely more useful unit overall.
Vineheart01 wrote: You still cant land ON the flier base so if theres no space around it its screening for you.
It just doesnt block them from moving around it/through it.
Minimum move requirement though is gonna make them tough to use for that purpose. How anyone used them due this in the first place seems like more faff than its worth lol
I'm considering pairing back my Serbyrus purchases, cavalry keyword has a whole lot of restrictions that make them fundamentally less useful. I'm not sure what or how many any more. I need to see what happens with Breachers points as they're an infinitely more useful unit overall.
Minimum move is not an issue with Hover jets, you lose the -1 to hit, for make sure chaff launchers, but...
Also this is useless for fusilaves(who want to zip across enemy units), and you only get up to 2 flyers per detachment; so costs CPs to use effectively.
Fliers in general just block for the turn they happen to be there. You can charge a hovering flier all day, its the supersonic thing that denies charges and they lose it in hover mode.
It never was a permanent strat, it was a "HA i happen to be in this exact annoying spot on the #1 turn you didnt want me to"
Vineheart01 wrote: Fliers in general just block for the turn they happen to be there. You can charge a hovering flier all day, its the supersonic thing that denies charges and they lose it in hover mode.
It never was a permanent strat, it was a "HA i happen to be in this exact annoying spot on the #1 turn you didnt want me to"
Aircraft keyword kills that all of completely in 9th. Unless the act of hovering removes the Aircraft keyword, which sounds unfeasible, need to see the 9th Faqs to see what they do with those senility, but as it stands all Aircraft can't ever screen except against units with Fly.
1. You still can't end your movement on the Aircraft base
2. Double pivoting, with the second happening in any moment of the movement, makes Admech's flier the most nimble Aircrafts in the whole game, able to do 180 each movement phase
So you just take two gunships, and switch their positions, cutting the main passageways to screen your gunline. Not that it is as important as it was in 8th, still a cool trick to have.
Aircraft lets you move through the plane as though it wasnt there, you still cant LAND ON IT when you are done moving. If your charge to that unit behind it (why you wouldnt charge the hovering flier is beyond me) only lets you succeed by standing on the base of the Aircraft, you cant charge because you cannot stop on the base of said aircraft, hover or not.
Hovermode has no affect on that, it just means the plane gets charged.
Aircraft screening is really only a thing in really tight areas the plane barely fits in ever since that faq. It pretty much killed it, but its still around purely because you cant sit on the base.
I've noticed from watching the few 9th games now that you need 'wings' to advance and attack the gain objectives this edition. AM have a fantastic amount of shooting on multiple survivable platforms. Vehicles gaining a massive bonus here. Sticking with stygies for the usual -1 to hit protection and more importantly the fall back and shoot canticle (twice for cp if needed). The first turns canticle will either be cover or reroll 1s in shooting depending on 1st or 2nd turn.
The first wing is the stay at home wing with the 3 skorpius disintegrators that stay back and either hide to fire out of los or find safe firing lanes to use all their weapons. Hidden servitors for actions if necessary or to screen DS. The 10 rangers gaining high ground if possible to take pot shots at vehicles or characters. The transport for blocking and to pick up the rangers and go for a late game objective if possible. The rangers can be swapped out for 10 vanguard with x3 plasma for the same points, needs testing.
The second and most powerful wing goes for the hardest objective or choke point and squares up to the enemies hardest units. Consisting of a front screen kastelans a rear of plasma destroyers and a gooey center of the warlord and datasmith. The kastelans dont need explaining except they can move and fire, fire in cc and pseudo fight in cc if needed. The datasmith can have them fallback and shoot from cc with his warlord trait. The destroyers have ob sec for a moving castle right behind them. The warlord and datasmith can do lots of tricks with their warlord traits like exploding 6s, extra ap. Strategem for +1 to hit on both units is old reliable. Warlord rerolls 1s to hit and heals himself. Both characters heals units around them.
Third wing is a bit weaker but still powerful consisting of balistarii up front, daedalosus in the middle and grav destroyers behind. Balistarii as vehicle's can do the same as the kastelans except they are weaker in cc, they can be at +1 to hit and wound for some cp. The grav destroyers can take advantage of the daedalosus +1 to hit. They go towards another objective like the other wing on a multi pronged attack. The daedalosus regains cp starting with 10 so plenty left.
As a late game objective or a smaller attack wing the rangers can jump in the dunerider and chance it once the smoke has cleared. The servitors can also be used as a screen if I castle.
Whole army has high toughness and -1 to hit with various ward saves. Quite mobile and multiple threats. Anti tank isn't as dedicated but the sheer amount of long range shots and multi wound damage should be enough. Hordes are toast and is elite infantry. Quite good versus primaris more importantly!
Obviously with 9th edition points changes happening soon I may have to shave about 250 points, which would be the rangers, dunerider, servitors and datasmith if needed. Should still work in principle, just tighter.
I should also point out that Mechanicum Locus, the stratagem to get a Warlord trait, specifies a <Forge World> Character. Daedalosus has no Forge World, so can't qualify. He also cannot use the Field Commander stratagem to get a specialist detachment trait for 1 CP because it specifies 'not a named character'.
Therefore, he MUST be your Warlord and only has access to the 6 basic Warlord traits and a specialist detachment trait if he's in one.
I'll write them down as they are now from what they were last update (CA19):
UNITS:
Spoiler:
Belisarius Cawl: 200, from 190
Tech-Priest Dominus: 75, from 70
Tech-Priest Manipulus: 70, from 65
Tech-Priest Enginseer: 35, from 30
Kataphron Breachers: 25, from 20
Kataphron Destroyers: 20, from 15
Skitarii Rangers: 9, from 7
Skitarii Vanguards: 9, from 8
Corpuscarii Electro-Priests: 14, from 14
Fulgurite Electro-Priests: 17, from 14
Sicarian Ruststalkers: 14, from 9
Sicarian Infiltrators: 15, from 11
Servitors: 7, from 5
Cybernetica Datasmith: 25, from 22
Kastelan Robots: 80, from 65
Onager Dunecrawler: 115, from 70
Skorpius Disintegrator: 115, from 85
Ironstrider Ballistarii: 35, from 40
Sydonian Dragoons: 60, from 59
Pteraxii Skystalkers: 17, from 15
Pteraxii Sterylizors: 19, from 17
Serberys Raiders: 16, from 14
Serberys Sulphurhounds: 20, from 16
Archeopter Fusilave: 110, from 102
Archeopter Stratoraptor: 70, from 70
Archeopter Transvector: 100, from 92
Skorpius Dunerider: 60, from 65
RANGED WEAPONS (not in alphabetical order sorry, my codex is not in English):
Spoiler:
Transuranic Arquebus: didn't hear the points in the video, the dude skipped it
Twin Cognis Autocannon: 30, from 20
Twin Cognis Lascannon: 40, from 40
Heavy Bolter: 10, from 10
Heavy Grav-cannon: 20, from 24
Plasma Cannon: 15, from 16
Torsion Cannon: 10, from 15
Radium Carbine: 0
Radium Pistol: 0
Radium Jezzail: 0
Galvanic Rifle: 0
Galvanic Carbine: 0
Plasma Culverin: 30, from 27
Plasma Caliver: 10, from 11
Incendince Combustor: 15, from 15
Flechette blaster: 0, from 0
Phosphor blaster: 3, from 6
Heavy Phosphor blaster: 15, from 15
Twin Heavy Phosphor blaster: 0, from 30
Volkite Blaster: 5, from 8
Arc rifle: 5, from 2
Arc pistol: 5, from 1
Heavy Arc Rifle: 5, from 6
Eradication beam: 0, from 30
Eradication ray: 10, from 10
Cognis Flamer: 5, from 7
Neutron Laser: 10, from 35
Macrostubber: 0, from 2
Icarus Array: 0, from 30
Stubber: 0, from 0
Heavy Stubber: 5, from 2
Cognis Heavy Stubber: 5, from 2
Multi-melta: 20, from 22
Laspistol: 0, from 0
Phosphor pistol: 0, from 1
Phosphor blast pistol: 3, from 1
Phosphor blast carbine: 15, from 15
Phosphor flamer stuff: 0, from 0
Archeo revolver: 0, from 2
Sulphur breath: 0, from 0
Belleros energy cannon: 20, from 20
Ferrumite cannon: 25, from 25
Disruptor Missile Launcher: 0, from 0
Magnarail lance: 0, from 0
Transsonic cannon: didn't hear the points in the video, the dude skipped it
Gamma Pistol: 10, from 10
MELEE WEAPONS:
Spoiler:
Electroleech staff: 0, from 0
Electroleech gauntlets: 0, from 0
Arc Claw: 5, from 4
Arc Maul: 5, from 5
Transsonic blades: 0, from 2
Transsonic razors: 0, from 2
Discord Claw: 0, from 0
Power Fist: 10, from 9
Omnissian Axe: 0, from 0
Omnissian Staff: 0, from 0
Taser lance: 10, from 9
Taser Goad: 5, from 4
Hydraulic Claw: 5, from 5
Kastelan Fists: 20, from 20
Servoarm: 0, from 0
Mechadendrites: 0, from 0
Cavalry saber: 0, from 0
Clawed limbs: 0, from 0
Pteraxii claws: 0, from 0
Power Maul: didn't hear the points in the video, the dude skipped it
UTILITY WARGEAR:
Spoiler:
Broad-spectrum data-tether: 0, from 0
Enhanced data-tether: 5, from 5
Chaff Launcher: 20, from 20
Command uplink: 0, from 0
Smoke Launchers: 0, from 0
Omnispex: 5, from 7
Well vanilla Serberys Raiders are up from 42 pts to 48, while Sulphurhounds are up from 57 to 68 . The phosphor carbine still costs 15 pts for some reason however. This continues to dig the pit between both units in terms of use sadly :/
Pteraxii Skystalkers are up from 79 to 90, and Sterylizors up from 89 to 100 pts. 11 pts more each for a vanilla squad.
Concerning Dunecrawlers, the Neutron Laser one went from 107 pts to 130, the Icarus from 100 to 115, the Beam one from 100 to 115, and the HPB variant from 100 to 115 too. Comparing to the Disintegrators, it went from 111 pts to 150 for the Belleros variant and 116 pts to 155 for the Ferrumite variant. The comparison between Disintegrators and Dunecrawlers should be reevalauted I feel.
Kastelan Robots get a 15 pts increase/model whatever the variant. I'm sad for the Fist variant as I don't know yet if the changes from 8th to 9th nerf them or buff them yet.
Our Skitarii both at 9 pts each, which is great I think because at last Vanguards become a more interesting alternative to Rangers, but sad when you know Guarsmen stay at 5 pts from what I've read. The Arc Rifles at 5 pts become hard to justify using too, I feel.
Full Arc Breachers change from 30 pts to 35 pts, and Destroyers with plasma + blaster come from 48 pts to 53.
The sulphurhounds are 60 points base, are they not? 3x20 points. Power maul is ? (I'm guessing 5) points & the blast pistol is another 3 points. I'm guessing they're 68 base.
PiñaColada wrote: The sulphurhounds are 60 points base, are they not? 3x20 points. Power maul is ? (I'm guessing 5) points & the blast pistol is another 3 points. I'm guessing they're 68 base
Yeah I brainfarted, I edited just before your answer ! My happiness is gone now haha
