People play more than one game. I am roughly 90 percent certain I am the ultramarine player he played against. I did win, and I did so by surviving the first turn fire through use of terrain and sacrificing my rhinos, and taking out one and a half baneblades on his turn.
So again, I have to ask:
Pre or post codex?
What did the lists look like?
What did the game actually look like?
All you're giving is incredibly vague anecdotes without explanation or context, which is about as useful as a kite in a hurricane when we're trying to discuss army viability.
The game against you, stratigo is still a perfect example of my point though.
@Waaghpower, I don't use conscripts or regular guardsmen because it is unfluffy for a superheavy regiment to have access to its own integral infantry formations.
People play more than one game. I am roughly 90 percent certain I am the ultramarine player he played against. I did win, and I did so by surviving the first turn fire through use of terrain and sacrificing my rhinos, and taking out one and a half baneblades on his turn.
So again, I have to ask:
Pre or post codex?
What did the lists look like?
What did the game actually look like?
All you're giving is incredibly vague anecdotes without explanation or context, which is about as useful as a kite in a hurricane when we're trying to discuss army viability.
I mean, I can list every game I've lost 2 superheavies in the first two turns, but that'll go through 6 of my eight games at NOVA plus damn near a third of my eighth edition games.
Most of them are pre-codex, because the codex has been out for like five days.
Even so, the durability of the tanks did not get a buff.
"I don't use screens or infantry of any kind in a tournament environment, and am only using examples from before the codex came out, (where we got price cuts and massive damage buffs,) but that's still proof that Guard are just as vulnerable to alpha strike as anyone else."
Waaaghpower wrote: "I don't use screens or infantry of any kind in a tournament environment, and am only using examples from before the codex came out, (where we got price cuts and massive damage buffs,) but that's still proof that Guard are just as vulnerable to alpha strike as anyone else."
Is that really your argument?
Not at all.
My argument is that "My superheavy tanks are vulnerable to being alpha-struck, so if I want to actually /play/ the game with superheavy tanks, I need to bring 3. I do plan on bringing more things that aren't superheavy tanks to try to diversify the experience for my opponents."
But yes, my army can't use real screens. It's unfluffy for the regiment to have it's own integral infantry formations. That's just how it is, sadly. I'm not gonna cry "BUT MY ARMY IS FLUFFY" and then run an unfluffy army. The fluff giveth, and the fluff taketh away.
I'm sorry I don't have time to test the new codex for you. I work, and have a life, and I usually only get two days a week to play for a couple of hours. I can get ~2 games a week, and the codex has been out less than a week. I don't know what you want from me.
And I didn't say guard, I'm specifically trying to address the "just take fewer tanks" argument - taking fewer tanks cripples the fluff, cripples the army composition, and I won't even really get to play with them anyways.
The most recent time one of my tanks died on turn 1 it was to deep-striking Slaanesh terminators with a lord, and combi-plasmas. They used Veterans of the Long War and Endless Cacophony, and killed one tank by themselves. And this happened Saturday, after the 'dex dropped.
EDIT:
The lord may have had a combi-melta. Either way I lost a tank.
Your argument doesn't hold up, though. You say that you MUST take three super-heavies because they're vulnerable to alpha strikes, but refuse to take tools to counter alpha strikes.
And despite the fact that you refuse to use the tools that you're explicitly encouraged to use in order to cover your biggest weakness (At NOVA events, no less,) you've still got an extremely powerful army.
(It IS fluffy for regiments to work together, btw. In fact, it's more unfluffy for regiments to not support each other.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: How many Terminators was it, btw? Because unless he took 7-8, that's very above-average shooting for him.
Waaaghpower wrote: Your argument doesn't hold up, though. You say that you MUST take three super-heavies because they're vulnerable to alpha strikes, but refuse to take tools to counter alpha strikes.
And despite the fact that you refuse to use the tools that you're explicitly encouraged to use in order to cover your biggest weakness (At NOVA events, no less,) you've still got an extremely powerful army.
(It IS fluffy for regiments to work together, btw. In fact, it's more unfluffy for regiments to not support each other.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: How many Terminators was it, btw? Because unless he took 7-8, that's very above-average shooting for him.
1) That's not the only reason I have to take 3 - it's just another reason to. And yes, I do refuse to take the tools to counter alpha-strikes, because superheavy regiments in the fluff lack access to those tools.
2) Thanks?
3) It is! I am always always always up for team games with another guard regiment! But such formed battlegroups are temporary, and it's hard to write long-lasting fluff about something that exists for one campaign, and then all the infantry feth off somewhere else. I am tracking the history of the 2nd Concordian Super Heavy Tank Regiment, not the history of some temporary mish-mash of regiments that lasts for what could be as little as one battle. More's the pity that people don't like team games, where 1 or 2 tanks from my regiment is perfectly fluffy.
4) Five plus a lord, which is six combi-plasmas, On average I think they do 14 wounds per volley, and then Endless Cacophony makes them shoot twice.
9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.
8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.
Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.
7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.
6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.
According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...
1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.
Edit: Actually, odds are lower by a small amount. I didn't factor in the chance any Terminators die to the first volley, which would reduce the damage on the second one, or the Lord dying, which would REALLY reduce the odds since now you don't reroll ones.
9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.
8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.
Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.
7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.
6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.
According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...
1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.
Your math is a little off, because Veterans of the Long War gives +1 To Wound. By my math, it's closer to 20 wounds in total - Ten per volley.
Getting enough wounds to kill a Baneblade isn't crazy unlikely, but certainly isn't common. (Also, you're likely to lose a single Terminator to getting hot.) And keep in mind, that's 380pts (assuming all Axes) and three command points, and it only works if the guard player refuses to use most of their codex in a tournament environment.
9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.
8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.
Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.
7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.
6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.
According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...
1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.
Your math is a little off, because Veterans of the Long War gives +1 To Wound. By my math, it's closer to 20 wounds in total - Ten per volley.
Getting enough wounds to kill a Baneblade isn't crazy unlikely, but certainly isn't common. (Also, you're likely to lose a single Terminator to getting hot.) And keep in mind, that's 380pts (assuming all Axes) and three command points, and it only works if the guard player refuses to use most of their codex in a tournament environment.
Poopy butts.
New odds (with VOTLW on Termis only) is 9.52%. A HUGE improvement.
JNAProductions wrote:10 shots, hitting on 3s, rerolling 1s.
7.78 hits.
Lord has 2 shots, hitting on 2s, rerolling 1s.
1.94 hits.
9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.
8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.
Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.
7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.
6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.
According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...
1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.
Edit: Actually, odds are lower by a small amount. I didn't factor in the chance any Terminators die to the first volley, which would reduce the damage on the second one, or the Lord dying, which would REALLY reduce the odds since now you don't reroll ones.
You forgot it is a 3+ to wound. My math is:
12 shots, hitting on 3's re-rolling 1's (I'll ignore the lord hits on 2s). Should be right around 10 hits.
10 hits wounding on 3's is right around 7 wounds.
I save on 6's, so maybe 1.
6 is 12 wounds on overcharged plasma, so 24 wounds ish. Doesn't take too much luck to make it 26.
9.72 total. Wounding on 4s, for 4.86 wounds. Saving on 6s (5s if you use Take Cover!), gives you 4.05 wounds taken.
8.1 damage total, on average. Not even enough to take it down a tier.
Endless Cacophony can only affect one unit, so the Termis fire again.
7.78 hits again. 3.89 wound. 3.24 past the save.
6.48 damage, or 14.58 on average.
According to Anydice, Lord firing once and Termis firing twice gives you a...
1.09% chance of killing a baneblade.
Your math is a little off, because Veterans of the Long War gives +1 To Wound. By my math, it's closer to 20 wounds in total - Ten per volley. Getting enough wounds to kill a Baneblade isn't crazy unlikely, but certainly isn't common. (Also, you're likely to lose a single Terminator to getting hot.) And keep in mind, that's 380pts (assuming all Axes) and three command points, and it only works if the guard player refuses to use most of their codex in a tournament environment.
It wasn't a tournament environment. It was my usual saturday club day game.
EDIT:
I also mentioned in my edit that the Lord may have had a combi-melta, don't remember that well, didn't write it down.
Edit: And average damage is 7.78 hits per volley, 5.19 wounds, 4.32 past the saves, or 8.64 damage on average. Double that for the stratagem, and you get just over 17 damage.
10.01% chance of not doing enough damage to cripple it even slightly.
If you're the guard that gets to double wounds for purposes of damage charts, you've got a better than 50% chance of being fine.
Edit: Also, you could easily drop some CP on Take Cover, to decrease wounds taken, and spend other CP to improve its BS. Not to mention you can actually charge them and do damage with CRUSH THEM.
JNAProductions wrote: 10.01% chance of not doing enough damage to cripple it even slightly.
If you're the guard that gets to double wounds for purposes of damage charts, you've got a better than 50% chance of being fine.
Edit: Also, you could easily drop some CP on Take Cover, to decrease wounds taken, and spend other CP to improve its BS. Not to mention you can actually charge them and do damage with CRUSH THEM.
All of what you say is true, but there were other things going on in the game than this 531 or whatever points getting alpha'd by 400 or whatever points of terminators. Sorry my anecdote doesn't fit into your narrative.
And at the time, I was trying Catachan. *shrug* maybe I should go Valhallan, I don't know. We can have that chat if you like!
Either way, I hope you guys see the problem now. A single, cheaper unit (with 3 CP spent) has a 90% chance of crippling a baneblade, and it's not even an anti-tank unit (though I recognize that overcharged plasma is good enough against tanks that it essentially is).
Also, he could've done more, if he was list tailoring, including picking Alpha Legion instead of Word Bearers and infiltrating before walking up with combi-meltaguns.
Infiltrating and walking up works... If you get first turn.
And I'd hardly call a 5+ to-hit Baneblade crippled. Weakened, yes, but it has a LOT of Dakka, and Stratagems that let you effectively ignore your damage.
...Unit, that isn't a PROBLEM. That is a weakness you choose to live with and not even that big of one. You said yourself, you are taking three tanks either way. They aren't even killing the tank, just spending 3 CP to mildly inconvenience it. Wow a unit got hurt by an alpha strike? Amazing.
Everyone is vulnerable to an alpha strike, this isn't something special.
You don't take a fluffy list and then complain about the supposed weaknesses of it. Especially when it is a list that would get a few raised eyebrows from people about how fluffy it is.
JNAProductions wrote:Infiltrating and walking up works... If you get first turn.
And I'd hardly call a 5+ to-hit Baneblade crippled. Weakened, yes, but it has a LOT of Dakka, and Stratagems that let you effectively ignore your damage.
Actually there's about a 48% chance of the Baneblade being reduced to BS6+, movement 4 and with only 3 attacks in a single volley from that kind of firepower (as well as it basically dying to the cherriest of taps afterwards, if it hasn't actually died). At that point it's basically worse at firing than a drunk Ork. Even with Crush It being used on it, it's actually more likely to get stomped by the same terminators, especially if they are actual EC terminators (since the EC trait gives you Always Strike First). So yeah, at that point that particular Baneblade is pretty screwed. You could use Stratagems on it, but that'd be like trying to patch a sinking boat with duct tape rather than just make sure your other two boats don't hit a rock.
Quickjager wrote:...Unit, that isn't a PROBLEM. That is a weakness you choose to live with and not even that big of one. You said yourself, you are taking three tanks either way. They aren't even killing the tank, just spending 3 CP to mildly inconvenience it. Wow a unit got hurt by an alpha strike? Amazing.
Everyone is vulnerable to an alpha strike, this isn't something special.
You don't take a fluffy list and then complain about the supposed weaknesses of it. Especially when it is a list that would get a few raised eyebrows from people about how fluffy it is.
He wasn't complaining. Other people were complaining that his fluffy list had no weaknesses and he's simply explaining that there is. He does have a right to defend himself.
Everyone suffers from, he shot me first syndrome. It isn't special, there are no lists that perfectly mitigate this anymore.
If he was playing against a mirror list he would have the same problem. A Shadowsword shot my Shadowsword isn't a weakness, it is just how a IGOUGO game system works.
It isn't even that he put all his points in one basket, because everyone can splitfire now.
Everyone suffers from, he shot me first syndrome. It isn't special, there are no lists that perfectly mitigate this anymore.
If he was playing against a mirror list he would have the same problem. A Shadowsword shot my Shadowsword isn't a weakness, it is just how a IGOUGO game system works.
It isn't even that he put all his points in one basket, because everyone can splitfire now.
Right...
So what started this was "Just take 1 or 2 tanks and then other stuff."
And I am explaining that 1 or even 2 tanks is incredibly vulnerable to getting shot first and the tank destroyed.
Yea, because like you said, you went to NOVA. Where people are taking the most optimal lists possible. It isn't a big surprise they can very effectively dismantle a fluffy list. Baneblade chassis has two problems that will hold them back from NOVA.
The first is since it is a single unit/model, it has to declare all of its shooting before actually seeing what happens, you mentioned this yourself earlier, incredible overkill is possible. People also gave suggestions on how to patch this up.
The second is the sheer size of the tank prevents it from getting cover easily as well as not being able to be out of LoS.
It just so happens alpha strikes are able to expose that second problem incredibly well. Which when combined with the lack of a deepstrike screen of say... Conscripts means they can easily get within melta or plasma rapidfire range.
So yes you are actually making your survivability WORSE by taking more of the same unit because you can't screen them properly, its like having a howitzer going up against infantry within 100m, not something its supposed to do. Because it is a fluffy list you say you refuse to drop a tank in order to take other units that can patch up this issue. So yea, to me that is complaining. Because having two tanks and the unit that can screen them from deepstrikers would solve that issue.
JNAProductions wrote: Not if it's bubblewrapped. Conscripts out to 3" away from the edge of it means no rapid-firing Plasmas, halving the damage.
Which Unit doesn't do.
Seriously, you can apply that logic to most other players, but UNit has made it clear that that's not a tactic they will use, because to them it's unfluffy.
You might as well be saying "Yeah, Tactical Marines suck, but if you take them with Guilliman..."
JNAProductions wrote: Not if it's bubblewrapped. Conscripts out to 3" away from the edge of it means no rapid-firing Plasmas, halving the damage.
Which Unit doesn't do.
Seriously, you can apply that logic to most other players, but UNit has made it clear that that's not a tactic they will use, because to them it's unfluffy.
You might as well be saying "Yeah, Tactical Marines suck, but if you take them with Guilliman..."
Fair enough. Unit's list is vulnerable to specific alpha-strike options.
So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?
That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".
Who the hell is afraid of superheavies? All I saw was people saying that it would be an obnoxious list to fight against similar to how people see playing against all Imperial Knight lists, people have different mindsets. Besides it isn't a contradictory statement what you said.
An above average unit being spammed is annoying, but is it any surprise that a mono-unit list has a counter?
Like in the thread Unit started, he says he sees people in his new area roll their eyes when they see his SHV. SHV still are a stigma, they probably will continue to be for quite a while longer. People like seeing things leave the table that are not their models, a SHV doesn't give that. You dread losing models more and more with the less that you field. I know that going from Orks to GK, "Oh damn I lost a single basic troop model, thats 21 points!" compared to before where I would go, "well there goes a trukk and 7 guys, 68 points, I got 6 more of the same". Did it make its points back? Did it capture or deny an objective? All questions people have that do have an impact on their enjoyment of the game.
Then the biggest one, "What could I have done differently?".
For SHV it comes down to one answer, kill it faster than it can kill me. Unit has himself said he frequently puts it on top of objectives and as a result the enemy cannot capture it without outright killing the SHV. So people notice; they realize they can't DO anything without killing it. So guess what they do? They kill it as fast as possible. It as a result can cripple Unit as he relies on them to do mostly everything. So what can HE do to counter? Perhaps build lists that focus a tad bit less on having SHV do everything from denying objectives to killing the enemy. He doesn't HAVE to take screening units, but he should take some basic troops with obj. secured for objective denial. It gives the enemy less reason to kill his tanks if they have to kill something else first to get a victory point.
But even with that they would still target his SHV, centerpiece models are lucrative targets afterall. So how can he protect them if he won't have a screen of some kind. The answer is reserves, which IS an option now with the new codex. Of course only 50% of his army can be in reserve, but that shouldn't be an issue with enough drops of objective secured infantry squads WHICH would also provide the CP needed to use that stratagem.
The answer is going to be regardless, hey you need less SHV focus. It would solve all of his problems, from being seen in his new scene as a powergamer. To being crippled from an alpha strike. You need variety or you end up boring to play against. So yea IT IS COMPLAINING, YOU WANT YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?
That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".
He doesn't even take special weapons on the Scions in his list because he didn't think he had the points for 7 point Plasma Guns.
It's bad list building in the first place and you know it
About half as good in firepower (and not even because you forgot the re-roll ones, as you admit) but more durable against big guns is fine. The Baneblade's also actually 703 points and does slightly more damage because you forgot one Twin Heavy Bolter.
Besides, if you mix and match the Baneblade's weapons more it changes.
For example, my Baneblades are the "classic" loadout, with only one set of sponsons (2 lascannons and 2 twin heavy bolters per tank, plus the default armament (1 baneblade cannon, 1 autocannon, 1 demolisher cannon, 1 twin heavy bolter)). Alternatively, the Baneblade you're testing against could be "optimized" with heavy flamers, in which case the cost rockets to 767 points and it actually loses firepower until the enemy is 8" away. So it all depends on what you've given the tank.[/spoiler]
How are you getting to 703 points for a Index Baneblade with 4 HB sponsons and heavy stubber? My calculations only bring it to 639.
Personally I commend the super-heavy guy in this thread for a.) sticking to a fluffy list which is actually pretty rare for IG players. If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff. And b.) for trying to maintain a calm position in the face of an echo chamber of people who are more interested in venting about their recent loss than considering other viewpoints.
Eh, I've only played IG once this edition. If he wants to fix his problems with his army/scene he has all the tools. He just needs to realize his fun might not be fun for others. Remember kids, no means no!
MarsNZ wrote: If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff.
That is just rubbish. You could mix 3 different regiments and it could still be perfectly fluffy. Different regiments fight alongside each other all of the time. It is also incredibly common for an infantry commander to have armoured and artillery forces under their command. You also have regiments that are merged, such as the 314th Prosan. It was made from the remnants of the 90th Elysian and 182nd Catachan, and excelled in airmobile jungle warfare.
It is actually extremely hard to make a Guard list that isn't fluffy in some way. The 40k setting is so crazily big that almost everything has happened at some point. If all else fails, just go with bureaucratic error. It can fluff away even the most stubborn list.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?
That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".
Two different complaints.
Baneblades ARE overpowered, beating out equivalent options from any other army. This is exacerbated by how the only major weakness that Super Heavies have is powerful alpha strikes, but Guard have a very good built-in counter to Alpha Strikes, eliminating the only major weakness.
Unit is saying that Baneblade spam is not overpowered, because he refuses to fix his own weaknesses.
He's standing five feet from an open tent, complaining about the rain.
MarsNZ wrote: Personally I commend the super-heavy guy in this thread for a.) sticking to a fluffy list which is actually pretty rare for IG players. If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff. And b.) for trying to maintain a calm position in the face of an echo chamber of people who are more interested in venting about their recent loss than considering other viewpoints.
Right?
How long is this going to go on for anyways? All Knight lists were a thing. Fluffy lists are a thing. The army has weaknesses. It probably looks awesome. Play on, man. Play on.
If people are flat out refusing the game, thats on them. If people politely ask you to modify the list because they legitimately can't handle the superheavies, just be a little generous and flex for them if you can.
Again the logic here confounds me to no end. They want him to take the Overpowered option (which he is specifically avoiding) just so they can complain that his list is overpowered?
This is basically complaining about someone because you can't complain about them.
Really because I see it you doing nothing but twisting what everyone says. He can be fluffy, just quit complaining when god forbid someone takes advantage of that to try and punch up.
If it does bug you that much take the OP option. Unit gives no middle ground.
EDIT: I also gave a bunch of advice already on how to mitigate it, much of which was already said in the thread Unit made.
MarsNZ wrote: If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff.
That is just rubbish. You could mix 3 different regiments and it could still be perfectly fluffy. Different regiments fight alongside each other all of the time. It is also incredibly common for an infantry commander to have armoured and artillery forces under their command. You also have regiments that are merged, such as the 314th Prosan. It was made from the remnants of the 90th Elysian and 182nd Catachan, and excelled in airmobile jungle warfare.
It is actually extremely hard to make a Guard list that isn't fluffy in some way. The 40k setting is so crazily big that almost everything has happened at some point. If all else fails, just go with bureaucratic error. It can fluff away even the most stubborn list.
Yes, and this is specifically noted to be the exception, not the norm. Yes, it exists, but it's MORE fluffy (aka more common) in the lore to have mono-theme regiments.
Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.
Quickjager wrote:Really because I see it you doing nothing but twisting what everyone says. He can be fluffy, just quit complaining when god forbid someone takes advantage of that to try and punch up.
If it does bug you that much take the OP option. Unit gives no middle ground.
EDIT: I also gave a bunch of advice already on how to mitigate it, much of which was already said in the thread Unit made.
Not really. Your advice is to take infantry. Infantry, which A: Does not fit the fluff of Unit's army (seriously, try telling a Sisters player that they really should be taking Conscripts over their own SOB - it's the same thing), and B: which would make Unit's army MORE powerful by adding bubble wrap.
At the moment, you can't complain that bubblewrapped units are OP, then when someone doesn't bubblewrap, you say they're also OP? Which is it? Is it OP with, or without the bubblewrap?
Without scrapping the SHVs completely, you'll just keep calling it OP because it's got SHV and many people still have a stigma against them. By taking an army purely of a minimal amount of SHV, it has a massive weakness to Alpha Strikes, being outmaneuvered, and suffers from the "eggs in one basket syndrome".
Like I said three pages ago, they don't want his list to be balanced or fun, they want it to stop existing or at least to be made so bad that he has no motivation to put it on the table.
In that context, their arguments make perfect sense. Those arguments also hold no utility though, as the goals are fundamentally different. You have to agree on where you're going before a discussion of how to get there has any value.
MarsNZ wrote: If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff.
That is just rubbish. You could mix 3 different regiments and it could still be perfectly fluffy. Different regiments fight alongside each other all of the time. It is also incredibly common for an infantry commander to have armoured and artillery forces under their command. You also have regiments that are merged, such as the 314th Prosan. It was made from the remnants of the 90th Elysian and 182nd Catachan, and excelled in airmobile jungle warfare.
It is actually extremely hard to make a Guard list that isn't fluffy in some way. The 40k setting is so crazily big that almost everything has happened at some point. If all else fails, just go with bureaucratic error. It can fluff away even the most stubborn list.
Yes, and this is specifically noted to be the exception, not the norm. Yes, it exists, but it's MORE fluffy (aka more common) in the lore to have mono-theme regiments.
Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.
Quickjager wrote:Really because I see it you doing nothing but twisting what everyone says. He can be fluffy, just quit complaining when god forbid someone takes advantage of that to try and punch up.
If it does bug you that much take the OP option. Unit gives no middle ground.
EDIT: I also gave a bunch of advice already on how to mitigate it, much of which was already said in the thread Unit made.
Not really. Your advice is to take infantry. Infantry, which A: Does not fit the fluff of Unit's army (seriously, try telling a Sisters player that they really should be taking Conscripts over their own SOB - it's the same thing), and B: which would make Unit's army MORE powerful by adding bubble wrap.
At the moment, you can't complain that bubblewrapped units are OP, then when someone doesn't bubblewrap, you say they're also OP? Which is it? Is it OP with, or without the bubblewrap?
Without scrapping the SHVs completely, you'll just keep calling it OP because it's got SHV and many people still have a stigma against them. By taking an army purely of a minimal amount of SHV, it has a massive weakness to Alpha Strikes, being outmaneuvered, and suffers from the "eggs in one basket syndrome".
Both points basically sums up the issues very well. I can understand people with other armies that lack viable fluffy options being salty about it, but to turn someone with an army that can do this into a pariah is just mean spirited (that or they're salty about not getting an easy win on what was one of the three punching bags of 7th edition).
You sir get an exalt. As for the rest of yas, there's not much more I can say that hasn't been said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: Like I said three pages ago, they don't want his list to be balanced or fun, they want it to stop existing or at least to be made so bad that he has no motivation to put it on the table.
In that context, their arguments make perfect sense. Those arguments also hold no utility though, as the goals are fundamentally different. You have to agree on where you're going before a discussion of how to get there has any value.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.
I agree that mono-themed regiments are by far the most common that exist. However, regiments fighting by themselves on a battlefield are very rare. An infantry regiment will almost always have armoured/artillery support units seconded to them whilst in the field. The Guard goes with a mono-regiment style but will use a combined arms style in almost all situations. Single regiments fighting by themselves are actually the exception.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.
I agree that mono-themed regiments are by far the most common that exist. However, regiments fighting by themselves on a battlefield are very rare. An infantry regiment will almost always have armoured/artillery support units seconded to them whilst in the field. The Guard goes with a mono-regiment style but will use a combined arms style in almost all situations. Single regiments fighting by themselves are actually the exception.
This. While IG regiments as a whole are usually a single purpose built type, they are almost always split up into combined task groups to support one another. It has been like this in the codex for years, and the newest one goes into this process quite a bit.
Normally you have an infantry regiment, and then armored fist squads, artillery, tanks, and various support troops will be requisitioned or assigned based on the conditions tht battle is takin place in. These support regiments can be the same (I.E. Mordian all the way) or a mix (Cadian infantry, valhallan tanks, steel legion artillery) but this is 100% how the IG has worked since the Horus Heresy. The book explains away "combined units" of tanks and infantry as task groups that have fought for a long time will adopt similar uniforms and camo schemes to cut down on confusion and friendly fire as well as promote comradery. Yes its basically giving you freedom to do whatever but its been that way in the lore for a long time.
Its like this because its the space marine chapter idea cranked to 11. If an infantry regiment turns traitor, they lack armor support. If an artillery regiment turns, they have no defensive infantry screens, etc.
MarsNZ wrote: If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff.
That is just rubbish. You could mix 3 different regiments and it could still be perfectly fluffy. Different regiments fight alongside each other all of the time. It is also incredibly common for an infantry commander to have armoured and artillery forces under their command. You also have regiments that are merged, such as the 314th Prosan. It was made from the remnants of the 90th Elysian and 182nd Catachan, and excelled in airmobile jungle warfare.
It is actually extremely hard to make a Guard list that isn't fluffy in some way. The 40k setting is so crazily big that almost everything has happened at some point. If all else fails, just go with bureaucratic error. It can fluff away even the most stubborn list.
Yes, but such formations are either rare or temporary. I could play a melded regiment, but I don't, sorry. The battlegroup, on the other hand, I agree is fluffy and awesome and I am always always always willing to play team games where I throw my support behind another regiment - in that case, sending only 1 or 2 tanks is fluffy.
Unfortunately, such team games are rare.
As for why I don't just play 2 regiments in a battlegroup: such battlegroups are temporary. It's hard to have the epic, long history of a battlegroup that might only last one battle, or at best, one campaign.
Trickstick wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.
I agree that mono-themed regiments are by far the most common that exist. However, regiments fighting by themselves on a battlefield are very rare. An infantry regiment will almost always have armoured/artillery support units seconded to them whilst in the field. The Guard goes with a mono-regiment style but will use a combined arms style in almost all situations. Single regiments fighting by themselves are actually the exception.
Yes, that's true, and I'm always always always willing to play team games where I throw my support behind another regiment - in that case, sending only 1 or 2 tanks is fluffy. In fact, I find team games engaging and fun.
Unfortunately, such team games are rare.
As for why I don't just play 2 regiments in a battlegroup: such battlegroups are temporary. It's hard to have the epic, long history of a battlegroup that might only last one battle, or at best, one campaign.
(I feel like I've said all of this before in at least two different threads, maybe I should just start quoting myself)
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Therefore, yes, a hybrid regiment can be fluffy, but by-and-large, the fluffiest guard lists are mono-theme.
I agree that mono-themed regiments are by far the most common that exist. However, regiments fighting by themselves on a battlefield are very rare. An infantry regiment will almost always have armoured/artillery support units seconded to them whilst in the field. The Guard goes with a mono-regiment style but will use a combined arms style in almost all situations. Single regiments fighting by themselves are actually the exception.
This. While IG regiments as a whole are usually a single purpose built type, they are almost always split up into combined task groups to support one another. It has been like this in the codex for years, and the newest one goes into this process quite a bit.
Normally you have an infantry regiment, and then armored fist squads, artillery, tanks, and various support troops will be requisitioned or assigned based on the conditions tht battle is takin place in. These support regiments can be the same (I.E. Mordian all the way) or a mix (Cadian infantry, valhallan tanks, steel legion artillery) but this is 100% how the IG has worked since the Horus Heresy. The book explains away "combined units" of tanks and infantry as task groups that have fought for a long time will adopt similar uniforms and camo schemes to cut down on confusion and friendly fire as well as promote comradery. Yes its basically giving you freedom to do whatever but its been that way in the lore for a long time.
Its like this because its the space marine chapter idea cranked to 11. If an infantry regiment turns traitor, they lack armor support. If an artillery regiment turns, they have no defensive infantry screens, etc.
3) It is! I am always always always up for team games with another guard regiment! But such formed battlegroups are temporary, and it's hard to write long-lasting fluff about something that exists for one campaign, and then all the infantry feth off somewhere else. I am tracking the history of the 2nd Concordian Super Heavy Tank Regiment, not the history of some temporary mish-mash of regiments that lasts for what could be as little as one battle. More's the pity that people don't like team games, where 1 or 2 tanks from my regiment is perfectly fluffy.
1) It's unfluffy. If a Baneblade company is being fielded, it is 3-5 tanks strong, unless the entire regiment (22 vehicles in my case) has been wiped out down to 2 (or 1), which is not something I want to have in my fluff for obvious reasons. You can read the Baneblade series of novels for details, but the commanders will always form scratch companies of 3-5 tanks until they literally have less than 3-5 tanks left in the whole regiment. The only time 1 or 2 tanks will be fielded separately is if they're not in a company at all and have instead been split off and deployed to support another regiment (and I am always happy to play team games with other guard commanders to form such a battlegroup, only bringing 1 or two tanks!)
Because I would like to play a superheavy tank regiment. I've got it all drawn up, homeworld, fluff, organization, deviations from Imperial standards, etc. and don't want to also feel compelled to build a second regiment who will fight alongside the superheavies for one game and then get ... thrown away? Because that battle is concluded and the battlegroup breaks up.
It's hard to have a coherent set of fluff for an IG battlegroup that extends beyond one planetary campaign, because the battlegroup breaks apart into its constituent regiments at the conclusion, which are then subsequently redeployed across the galaxy. It's much easier to play a single regiment, follow it's storied history, and then try to get team games with other famous (or new!) regiments to represent the formation of a temporary battlegroup. But in the absence of team games, the superheavy company is about the only way a regiment would be deployed.
Also, I'll note that certain superheavy tank regiments try to keep the tanks together (such as the Paragonians I mentioned earlier). But I also admit those are the exception rather than the rule.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, I mentioned earlier in the thread that I know it is unfluffy for 3 Baneblades to operate together regularly.
I'm always always always always always down for teaming up with another IG player, so their regiment gets one or two of my superheavies in support - that is by far the fluffiest way to play.
Sadly, however, team games seem unpopular, and so I am stuck either building an entirely new regiment\company and running them together (the thing I was hoping to avoid doing; I don't want to build another army) or playing my Regiment in the fluffiest way possible, which is the Emperor's Fury Baneblade company.
Also, this is comparatively irrelevant, but Baneblade companies are more common than one might expect. The Paragonian regiments (From the Baneblade -> Iron Harvest -> Stormlord -> Shadowsword series of novels) always fight in companies, and allow their tanks to be split up as little as possible. So there is precedent for that, though I actually (as mentioned) would prefer to find another regiment / imperial force to fight alongside for MAXIMUM FLUFF.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mentioned in my OP that I'd be happy to play a team game with another regiment in which I brought only one tank, or two if necessary. But people don't seem to like team games so much, and I understand why: they take a bit to organize. ... EDIT: Sorry, not in the OP - I mention team games further down. Even so, the real fluff for the IG is that their regiments are split up across a whole battle zone, and that's especially true of superheavy tanks. Concentrated tank companies are only brought to the most vital of battles - just like Guilliman or Cawl would.
Unit1126PLL wrote: And to be fair, best-case scenario I play a team game with another guard player, bringing one or two vehicles and possibly some support elements. That is what is fluffiest for a superheavy regiment - to be deployed in support of another regiment in a battlegroup, including being doled out in small less-than-company-size packets. But for some reason people despise team games.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I have...lists built around playing team games with allied IG regiments...
There. I think that's from two different threads in the last few days, including this one. You can even click on my name to zip to the relevant post to read the bits I redacted for brevity.
I was talking about "normal" regiments, aka non superheavies. Also, I thought superheavies usually only get fielded en masse in titanic battles, a typica 40k game is like a skirmish for them.
However, on page 15 of the new codex you can see a Leman Russ regiment that has a baneblade "company" consisting of a single baneblade, so it looks like theyve tweaked the lore a bit to allow a single baneblade in tank formations. Never heard of that until now.
MrMoustaffa wrote: I was talking about "normal" regiments, aka non superheavies. Also, I thought superheavies usually only get fielded en masse in titanic battles, a typica 40k game is like a skirmish for them.
However, on page 15 of the new codex you can see a Leman Russ regiment that has a baneblade "company" consisting of a single baneblade, so it looks like theyve tweaked the lore a bit to allow a single baneblade in tank formations. Never heard of that until now.
Yes, that is new! And particularly exciting. Forge World's 6th Edition Imperial Armour Volume 1 has a Krieg armoured regiment, and there's a Cadian shadowsword company attached - but it is three shadowswords IIRC in the TO&E.
But right... did you read my posts? I am super willing to split the superheavies up. More than willing, the most willing. I'll do it tonight if I can find a teammate.
But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.
The problem, summed up:
Unit is taking his (debateably) "Fluffy" list to tournament events.
Unit is then arguing that his army is not overpowered, because it's vulnerable to alpha strikes in a tournament environment.
Furthermore: Not having infantry doesn't make his army more fun to play against. Bringing three Baneblades in a 2k game is still going to be spam, regardless of whatever your remaining ~500pts is. Not taking conscripts or Infantry makes the army weaker, but it doesn't make it fun or interesting.
At best, it turns the game into a coin-flip: If I go first, I can shoot him at rapid fire/assault him from Deep Strike and win the game.
If he goes first, he obliterates too much of my army for me to fight back.
It's still not a fun game, it's just a coin flip weighted towards Unit instead of an auto-win.
(Additionally, Unit is repeatedly citing anecdotes where his opponents roll ridiculously well, then using that as ""proof"" of how vulnerable he is.)
As a hypothetical, ignoring fluff for a moment: What if Unit was arguing that his conscript spam army with 500 Conscripts in one army was ok, and conscript spam in general was OK, because he didn't take Comissars.
Would you agree that his conscript spam list was fun, and that conscripts weren't broken, just because one player doesn't take the thing that buffs Conscripts beyond their basic level of overpoweredness?
(Also: Not really relevant, but we did the math wrong on that Plasma earlier, because the Lord wouldn't get to fire twice with Endless Cacophany, only the Termies - It's 22 Plasma shots, not 24.)
Waaaghpower wrote: The problem, summed up:
Unit is taking his (debateably) "Fluffy" list to tournament events.
Unit is then arguing that his army is not overpowered, because it's vulnerable to alpha strikes in a tournament environment.
Furthermore: Not having infantry doesn't make his army more fun to play against. Bringing three Baneblades in a 2k game is still going to be spam, regardless of whatever your remaining ~500pts is. Not taking conscripts or Infantry makes the army weaker, but it doesn't make it fun or interesting.
At best, it turns the game into a coin-flip: If I go first, I can shoot him at rapid fire/assault him from Deep Strike and win the game.
If he goes first, he obliterates too much of my army for me to fight back.
It's still not a fun game, it's just a coin flip weighted towards Unit instead of an auto-win.
(Additionally, Unit is repeatedly citing anecdotes where his opponents roll ridiculously well, then using that as ""proof"" of how vulnerable he is.)
As a hypothetical, ignoring fluff for a moment: What if Unit was arguing that his conscript spam army with 500 Conscripts in one army was ok, and conscript spam in general was OK, because he didn't take Comissars.
Would you agree that his conscript spam list was fun, and that conscripts weren't broken, just because one player doesn't take the thing that buffs Conscripts beyond their basic level of overpoweredness?
(Also: Not really relevant, but we did the math wrong on that Plasma earlier, because the Lord wouldn't get to fire twice with Endless Cacophany, only the Termies - It's 22 Plasma shots, not 24.)
To be honest, I would rather fight 3 Baneblades than an army with conscript spam. My CSMs usually bring 20 Lascannons, I am pretty sure I could take out 3 of them over the course of a normal game.
This is not to say the Baneblades are properly priced. That is to say conscript spam is still OP, and I don't know a good counter for it using CSMs.
It's just that I could see how to deal with Baneblades with the slightly spammy armor denial list I run now. Most people would not have the same results.
Waaaghpower wrote: The problem, summed up:
Unit is taking his (debateably) "Fluffy" list to tournament events.
Unit is then arguing that his army is not overpowered, because it's vulnerable to alpha strikes in a tournament environment.
Did you miss the part where I said this happens in my club as well?
Furthermore: Not having infantry doesn't make his army more fun to play against. Bringing three Baneblades in a 2k game is still going to be spam, regardless of whatever your remaining ~500pts is. Not taking conscripts or Infantry makes the army weaker, but it doesn't make it fun or interesting.
At best, it turns the game into a coin-flip: If I go first, I can shoot him at rapid fire/assault him from Deep Strike and win the game.
If he goes first, he obliterates too much of my army for me to fight back.
It's still not a fun game, it's just a coin flip weighted towards Unit instead of an auto-win.
This is a problem, I think, and is why I am looking to solve it. But why is 3 baneblades at 2k any more 'spam' than 3 Khorne Berzerker squads or 3 Leman Russes or 3... of any other unit? And why is spam bad?
(Additionally, Unit is repeatedly citing anecdotes where his opponents roll ridiculously well, then using that as ""proof"" of how vulnerable he is.)
I think the math proved earlier that it's not "ridiculously well" - there's a ~50% chance that the baneblade goes down to 4" movement and hitting on a 6+, and a ~10% chance that it dies (which is actually in the medium range of the distribution, everything seems to be between 2% and 16%).
Waaaghpower wrote: As a hypothetical, ignoring fluff for a moment: What if Unit was arguing that his conscript spam army with 500 Conscripts in one army was ok, and conscript spam in general was OK, because he didn't take Comissars.
Would you agree that his conscript spam list was fun, and that conscripts weren't broken, just because one player doesn't take the thing that buffs Conscripts beyond their basic level of overpoweredness?
I'd probably help this hypothetical version of myself try to figure out how to make his list more fun without telling him "just don't play it bud, that's fine."... also you miss my point entirely. I'm not arguing Guard aren't OP, and if I am, could you cite where I said that?
Waaaghpower wrote: (Also: Not really relevant, but we did the math wrong on that Plasma earlier, because the Lord wouldn't get to fire twice with Endless Cacophany, only the Termies - It's 22 Plasma shots, not 24.)
I also mentioned that I think the Lord may have had a combi-melta instead of a combi-plasma, and that I don't remember exactly. It's also possible we played this wrong... I am human and do make mistakes.
But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.
That's a pity. We do it all the time here, and it's fantastic.
I'd like to! Where do you play?
techsoldaten wrote:
To be honest, I would rather fight 3 Baneblades than an army with conscript spam. My CSMs usually bring 20 Lascannons, I am pretty sure I could take out 3 of them over the course of a normal game.
This is not to say the Baneblades are properly priced. That is to say conscript spam is still OP, and I don't know a good counter for it using CSMs.
It's just that I could see how to deal with Baneblades with the slightly spammy armor denial list I run now. Most people would not have the same results.
Your army isn't that rare; I know a few las-predators and stormraven gunships with missiles, MMs and lascannons running around. It doesn't take many of those to get to ~15 lascannons, though 20 is pretty crazy. On average I think I'd be tabled at the bottom of 3, if I didn't shoot back. If I did, then... well, we'd have to recalculate. But if you went first, I'd lose a tank instantly.
This is a problem, I think, and is why I am looking to solve it. But why is 3 baneblades at 2k any more 'spam' than 3 Khorne Berzerker squads or 3 Leman Russes or 3... of any other unit? And why is spam bad?
Spam is bad because it turns games (and the metagame in general) into Rock Paper Scissors.
If you bring 2000 points of heavy tanks, I either have to bring almost entirely anti-tank or I lose. You either can overwhelm my counter to what you brought, or you can't. It saps any and all strategy from the game, and it's not fun to play against.
3 Leman Russes is not spam, because that's only about 30% of your army. Same with 3 squads of Berserkers, except that's more like 25%.
3 Baneblades is 75% of your army. Taking three 500 point units is not remotely equivalent to taking three 200 point units.
This is a problem, I think, and is why I am looking to solve it. But why is 3 baneblades at 2k any more 'spam' than 3 Khorne Berzerker squads or 3 Leman Russes or 3... of any other unit? And why is spam bad?
Spam is bad because it turns games (and the metagame in general) into Rock Paper Scissors.
If you bring 2000 points of heavy tanks, I either have to bring almost entirely anti-tank or I lose. You either can overwhelm my counter to what you brought, or you can't. It saps any and all strategy from the game, and it's not fun to play against.
3 Leman Russes is not spam, because that's only about 30% of your army. Same with 3 squads of Berserkers, except that's more like 25%.
3 Baneblades is 75% of your army. Taking three 500 point units is not remotely equivalent to taking three 200 point units.
So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?
Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).
So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?
Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).
Oh come on.
First, yes, obviously you can bring more of a cheap unit without it being seen as spam. But it's just bizarre to talk like a reasonable solution to perceived spam is to make the unit you're spamming cheaper. Just as obviously, this is more likely to be perceived as you abusing an overpowered unit. So, sure, if Baneblades cost 5 points apiece then it'd be really silly to think of 3 of them as "spam", but they'd be so disgustingly overpowered at that price that it'd be reasonable to refuse to play against someone who's bringing even one.
So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?
Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).
Oh come on.
First, yes, obviously you can bring more of a cheap unit without it being seen as spam. But it's just bizarre to talk like a reasonable solution to perceived spam is to make the unit you're spamming cheaper. Just as obviously, this is more likely to be perceived as you abusing an overpowered unit. So, sure, if Baneblades cost 5 points apiece then it'd be really silly to think of 3 of them as "spam", but they'd be so disgustingly overpowered at that price that it'd be reasonable to refuse to play against someone who's bringing even one.
Context is important since Unit is just pointing out the original argument's goal post has been moved so many times and so far from it's original place that the opposition is basically spouting nonsense at this point.
The entire argument basically boils down to them realizing Unit is one of those few people who legitimately likes Guard superheavy tanks outside of their power, but still fears them and are trying to find any weird or obscure reason to discourage him from playing them.
It's almost hilarious at this point since not one, but TWO people that have faced Unit's army have shown up to defend him as well.
His fluffy list; fluffy list generally have a weakness, Unit's weakness is literally what everyone else suffers from. I Got Shot Before I Could Shoot Syndrome. Very deadly to all forms of models in 40k, recently the I Got Stabbed And I Didn't Do Nothing Syndrome is making a comeback as well with this edition but to a much less extent.
So he has a weakness and he wants to fix it. Well with his remaining 500 points he could buy a few Infantry Squad to screen his Baneblades. Or he could get Sentinels, or even 6 Hellhounds which he could turn sideways with a few inches of space in between them. He could even decide to go Tallarn and invoke their 3 CP stratagem to hide his Baneblades in reserve. He could stop bringing the FW repair vehicle as if he losses 2 tanks in his first two turns it obviously is being useless. He could even invest in buildings to block certain approach angles.
He has all the tools to succeed. But he is just sitting there being punched in the face saying, "I want MY list to work". At a certain point if you are LOSING games consistently, it isn't working so you should probably try changing the list up a bit.
So why is his tank blowing up so much?
-He is playing 80% of the same list every game against the same people, obviously they aren't robots, so of course they know what to do.
-He played in NOVA, where quite simply any non-optimized list is eviscerated.
-He won't take the tools to prevent it.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?
That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".
Two different complaints.
Baneblades ARE overpowered, beating out equivalent options from any other army
Point for point, the Space Marine superheavy tanks are dramatically more capable than their IG counterparts, especially in resiliency, even if more expensive in absolute terms. Knights may not have the raw firepower of the IG superheavy tanks, but with 24 wounds with a 5++ vs 26 wounds without one, better BS/WS, and some powerful CC ability, they don't appear too far off on terms of raw power (though probably cannot be supported quite as capably).
But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.
That's a pity. We do it all the time here, and it's fantastic.
I'd like to! Where do you play?
We're in the St Louis area. We mostly just play in basements, but we used to hit a few of the local stores here before we took the second half of 7th ed off. If it's a question of rules, Adepticon's team tournament rules are a pretty good starting point for team games with minimum weirdness.
So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?
Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).
Oh come on.
First, yes, obviously you can bring more of a cheap unit without it being seen as spam. But it's just bizarre to talk like a reasonable solution to perceived spam is to make the unit you're spamming cheaper. Just as obviously, this is more likely to be perceived as you abusing an overpowered unit. So, sure, if Baneblades cost 5 points apiece then it'd be really silly to think of 3 of them as "spam", but they'd be so disgustingly overpowered at that price that it'd be reasonable to refuse to play against someone who's bringing even one.
I'm actually alright with making Baneblades worse. I don't think I said otherwise anywhere. I played them in 3rd-7th where they weren't very good vehicles. I just think it's funny to say "I hate that you bring 75% of your list as superheavies" in the same breath as saying "superheavies should take up 90% of your list instead". Of course, if you're just trying to get me to not play the army at all, I can understand your point, but telling someone "you don't get to play your army" isn't really a nice thing to do, and I'm kind of appalled that people still think they should control other people's choices within the framework of the provided rules.
Quickjager wrote:His fluffy list; fluffy list generally have a weakness, Unit's weakness is literally what everyone else suffers from. I Got Shot Before I Could Shoot Syndrome. Very deadly to all forms of models in 40k, recently the I Got Stabbed And I Didn't Do Nothing Syndrome is making a comeback as well with this edition but to a much less extent.
So he has a weakness and he wants to fix it. Well with his remaining 500 points he could buy a few Infantry Squad to screen his Baneblades. Or he could get Sentinels, or even 6 Hellhounds which he could turn sideways with a few inches of space in between them. He could even decide to go Tallarn and invoke their 3 CP stratagem to hide his Baneblades in reserve. He could stop bringing the FW repair vehicle as if he losses 2 tanks in his first two turns it obviously is being useless. He could even invest in buildings to block certain approach angles.
He has all the tools to succeed. But he is just sitting there being punched in the face saying, "I want MY list to work". At a certain point if you are LOSING games consistently, it isn't working so you should probably try changing the list up a bit.
So why is his tank blowing up so much?
-He is playing 80% of the same list every game against the same people, obviously they aren't robots, so of course they know what to do.
-He played in NOVA, where quite simply any non-optimized list is eviscerated.
-He won't take the tools to prevent it.
I didn't anywhere say I actually minded losing. What I did say is that I want to actually play the game with superheavy tanks, so bringing 1 isn't an option, because it gets deleted and then I'm not actually playing the game with a superheavy tank. I had a blast at nova, it was awesome and fun. I have a blast when 2 of my tanks get deleted turn 1, because I get to use the third and see if my company commander (or whomever the mantle devolves to if they are knocked out!) can endure the enemy's attentions long enough to salvage what is left. I don't actually mind if the list "works" or not, perhaps obviously.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: So...Unit takes a fluffy list (3 Superheavies). People complains it's OP (because they're afraid of Superheavies), Unit points out it has a weakness (being alpha striked and losing 1/3rd to 1/2 of your army in one go), then people complain he didn't violate his fluff to take OP options (taking conscripts)?
That logic....confounds me. It's the verbal equivalent of making someone punch himself and then asking "why are you punching yourself".
Two different complaints.
Baneblades ARE overpowered, beating out equivalent options from any other army
Point for point, the Space Marine superheavy tanks are dramatically more capable than their IG counterparts, especially in resiliency, even if more expensive in absolute terms. Knights may not have the raw firepower of the IG superheavy tanks, but with 24 wounds with a 5++ vs 26 wounds without one, better BS/WS, and some powerful CC ability, they don't appear too far off on terms of raw power (though probably cannot be supported quite as capably).
But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.
That's a pity. We do it all the time here, and it's fantastic.
I play 80% team games. It's much more fun that 1v1.
Where do you play?!? I completely agree, and back in the depths of time I started this army alongside my buddy's regiment, but of course, life moves beyond middle school and his regiment is now deployed elsewhere in the galaxy and mine finds itself alone and unsupported (sadly) most of the time.
But people don't like team games so it's actually rarer IRL than it would be in the fluff that my superheavies actually get to support someone else.
That's a pity. We do it all the time here, and it's fantastic.
I'd like to! Where do you play?
We're in the St Louis area. We mostly just play in basements, but we used to hit a few of the local stores here before we took the second half of 7th ed off. If it's a question of rules, Adepticon's team tournament rules are a pretty good starting point for team games with minimum weirdness.
Quickjager wrote: His fluffy list; fluffy list generally have a weakness, Unit's weakness is literally what everyone else suffers from. I Got Shot Before I Could Shoot Syndrome. Very deadly to all forms of models in 40k, recently the I Got Stabbed And I Didn't Do Nothing Syndrome is making a comeback as well with this edition but to a much less extent.
So he has a weakness and he wants to fix it. Well with his remaining 500 points he could buy a few Infantry Squad to screen his Baneblades. Or he could get Sentinels, or even 6 Hellhounds which he could turn sideways with a few inches of space in between them. He could even decide to go Tallarn and invoke their 3 CP stratagem to hide his Baneblades in reserve. He could stop bringing the FW repair vehicle as if he losses 2 tanks in his first two turns it obviously is being useless. He could even invest in buildings to block certain approach angles.
He has all the tools to succeed. But he is just sitting there being punched in the face saying, "I want MY list to work". At a certain point if you are LOSING games consistently, it isn't working so you should probably try changing the list up a bit.
So why is his tank blowing up so much?
-He is playing 80% of the same list every game against the same people, obviously they aren't robots, so of course they know what to do.
-He played in NOVA, where quite simply any non-optimized list is eviscerated.
-He won't take the tools to prevent it.
He never actually said either of those things. Neither verbatim nor paraphrased. You may want to go back to page 9 and see how the argument actually got started instead of just assuming the worst of people.
Point for point, the Space Marine superheavy tanks are dramatically more capable than their IG counterparts, especially in resiliency, even if more expensive in absolute terms. Knights may not have the raw firepower of the IG superheavy tanks, but with 24 wounds with a 5++ vs 26 wounds without one, better BS/WS, and some powerful CC ability, they don't appear too far off on terms of raw power (though probably cannot be supported quite as capably).
No, SM super heavies are definitely not.
Comparing: SM tanks are higher Toughness and have a better save, which scales equivalently with their cost. They're also slightly more accurate, but lack regiment bonuses which easily compensate for that difference, making all things equal.
So let's compare damage.
A Shadowsword, compared to a Cerberus, gets twice as many shots, higher Strength (which helps against T8,) re-rolls against Titanic enemies, better AP, and better damage.
A Baneblade, compared to a Fellblade, lacks the crappy offhand AT fire, but gets 50% more shots, higher strength, and 50% more damage.
IG tanks win hands down. They slightly lose in the durability department, but considering that they're cheaper and have approximately twice the firepower, it's No Contest.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good.
Is it? Most people in the other thread were bored because there wasn't enough "variety" or things to shoot at that weren't baneblades.
Making baneblades more expensive just means I bring less "variety."
I don't think anyone in the other thread was saying they wouldn't want to play against my superheavy tank company because they thought it was op. I think (if I drew the right lessons from it) they meant they wouldn't play against it because they thought it was boring.
Maybe I drew the wrong conclusion.
You mean THIS? It shows a slight lack of critical thinking. I even addressed the fact by doing what I suggested he would have less issues at his new scene. Which in the other thread he implied he did. I never suggested they were OP, I only discussed his two points which are.
-I only take 3 because one or two die really fast. -People are seeing me as a bandwagoning powergamer.
This is a problem, I think, and is why I am looking to solve it. But why is 3 baneblades at 2k any more 'spam' than 3 Khorne Berzerker squads or 3 Leman Russes or 3... of any other unit? And why is spam bad?
Spam is bad because it turns games (and the metagame in general) into Rock Paper Scissors.
If you bring 2000 points of heavy tanks, I either have to bring almost entirely anti-tank or I lose. You either can overwhelm my counter to what you brought, or you can't. It saps any and all strategy from the game, and it's not fun to play against.
3 Leman Russes is not spam, because that's only about 30% of your army. Same with 3 squads of Berserkers, except that's more like 25%.
3 Baneblades is 75% of your army. Taking three 500 point units is not remotely equivalent to taking three 200 point units.
So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?
Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).
Well, for one thing....yes, that's kind of the only possible definition of spam. An army that's over say 2/3rds of whatever thing (or really, one type of thing) is a spam list, though I generally use the term "skew" because it's less pejorative.
If a large part of your strategy is centered around causing a significant quantity of your opponent's weapons be lacking in any kind of good targets, you're using the idea of Skew, which is common across almost all wargames. If you take 300 orks, any Lascannons, Grav Guns, Plasma Guns, etc your opponent has will largely be wasted. If you present only T7 Sv3+ vehicles, all your opponent's lasguns and bolters are wasted. Skew exists. You do gain a strategic advantage from it. Don't play dumb here, you do go to tournaments.
The weird thing is that because of the magic of Internet Hyperbole, everyone on Dakka kind of simultaneously thinks of the game at a highly optimized, top-tournament-tables way, where every opponent's list is perfect and every action they take is perfect, but also at a fairly un-optimized, basic way, where a unit that can't use its guns and punches to kill stuff efficiently is immediately useless because what else could you *possibly* use them for? I'm not saying I have concrete proof of this, because obviously everyone gets very indignant about any kind of suggestion that random internet folks are not all top tier tournament players, but *in my experience* this is because people tend to like to exaggerate the effectiveness of what their opponent has and how optimized their lists are from what actually occurred in real life. In general, people don't like losses to be their fault, and whatever the most convenient excuse for a loss is, they're gonna take it, because it feels better than "I lost because of X Y and Z mistakes I made". A superheavy is a big, giant, helpful (and often with a dose of 'I couldn't afford that' jealousy) excuse filled with rules people probably aren't used to dealing with.
The funny part of it all is, I've probably won more games with units that I had no reasonable way of killing things with than any other unit. I've used Scout Sentinels to secure an objective and completely remove a Baneblade's movement phase, I've used out of ammo Manticores to block off charge lanes and prevent the Relic from being taken, and I've used empty transports to stop entire conscript blobs from being able to Pile In around it and get to the five wyches holding them in combat. Movement and Sight win games almost as commonly as killing things, and on that playing field, every model is pretty much equal.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good.
Is it? Most people in the other thread were bored because there wasn't enough "variety" or things to shoot at that weren't baneblades.
Making baneblades more expensive just means I bring less "variety."
I don't think anyone in the other thread was saying they wouldn't want to play against my superheavy tank company because they thought it was op. I think (if I drew the right lessons from it) they meant they wouldn't play against it because they thought it was boring.
Maybe I drew the wrong conclusion.
You mean THIS? It shows a slight lack of critical thinking. I even addressed the fact by doing what I suggested he would have less issues at his new scene. Which in the other thread he implied he did. I never suggested they were OP, I only discussed his two points which are.
-I only take 3 because one or two die really fast. -People are seeing me as a bandwagoning powergamer.
Perhaps it's my crippling lack of critical thinking, but what's the point of your post?
Are you saying that there isn't a tension between "baneblades take up too much of your points" and "Baneblades should be more expensive so they take up more of your points?"
Because I'm arguing that there is a tension there, and I'm not able to glean from your post what it is you're on about now.
This is a problem, I think, and is why I am looking to solve it. But why is 3 baneblades at 2k any more 'spam' than 3 Khorne Berzerker squads or 3 Leman Russes or 3... of any other unit? And why is spam bad?
Spam is bad because it turns games (and the metagame in general) into Rock Paper Scissors. If you bring 2000 points of heavy tanks, I either have to bring almost entirely anti-tank or I lose. You either can overwhelm my counter to what you brought, or you can't. It saps any and all strategy from the game, and it's not fun to play against. 3 Leman Russes is not spam, because that's only about 30% of your army. Same with 3 squads of Berserkers, except that's more like 25%. 3 Baneblades is 75% of your army. Taking three 500 point units is not remotely equivalent to taking three 200 point units.
So spam is defined not by numbers of units but by % of the army list that those units take up?
Wouldn't that mean making Baneblades cheaper is a good thing? So that they take up less % of my army list and therefore I can add more stuff and my opponent has more fun? (now we're back at the point as to why making them more expensive is bad, which is how this WHOLE segway started).
Well, for one thing....yes, that's kind of the only possible definition of spam. An army that's over say 2/3rds of whatever thing (or really, one type of thing) is a spam list, though I generally use the term "skew" because it's less pejorative.
If a large part of your strategy is centered around causing a significant quantity of your opponent's weapons be lacking in any kind of good targets, you're using the idea of Skew, which is common across almost all wargames. If you take 300 orks, any Lascannons, Grav Guns, Plasma Guns, etc your opponent has will largely be wasted. If you present only T7 Sv3+ vehicles, all your opponent's lasguns and bolters are wasted. Skew exists. You do gain a strategic advantage from it. Don't play dumb here, you do go to tournaments.
The weird thing is that because of the magic of Internet Hyperbole, everyone on Dakka kind of simultaneously thinks of the game at a highly optimized, top-tournament-tables way, where every opponent's list is perfect and every action they take is perfect, but also at a fairly un-optimized, basic way, where a unit that can't use its guns and punches to kill stuff efficiently is immediately useless because what else could you *possibly* use them for? I'm not saying I have concrete proof of this, because obviously everyone gets very indignant about any kind of suggestion that random internet folks are not all top tier tournament players, but *in my experience* this is because people tend to like to exaggerate the effectiveness of what their opponent has and how optimized their lists are from what actually occurred in real life. In general, people don't like losses to be their fault, and whatever the most convenient excuse for a loss is, they're gonna take it, because it feels better than "I lost because of X Y and Z mistakes I made". A superheavy is a big, giant, helpful (and often with a dose of 'I couldn't afford that' jealousy) excuse filled with rules people probably aren't used to dealing with.
The funny part of it all is, I've probably won more games with units that I had no reasonable way of killing things with than any other unit. I've used Scout Sentinels to secure an objective and completely remove a Baneblade's movement phase, I've used out of ammo Manticores to block off charge lanes and prevent the Relic from being taken, and I've used empty transports to stop entire conscript blobs from being able to Pile In around it and get to the five wyches holding them in combat. Movement and Sight win games almost as commonly as killing things, and on that playing field, every model is pretty much equal.
Yes, I recognize my list is skew, but it's that way by accident rather than design, really. I fixate on tanks and superheavy tanks. I'm not running a skew list because "ah, I'm not skewing hard enough, better bring more tanks!" I'm running a skew list because guard regiments are the definition of skew (all of one thing and none of anything else), and I like big tanks, so a regiment of big tanks is going to be one thing...
Also I do like your post, I think you understand the weirdness on this forum. I was hoping it wouldn't be so weird, as I did make the thread honestly asking for advice (and I think I received some good bits!) and instead got a bunch of people telling me just to run a different army.
Quickjager wrote: You see, right there. There is the bad faith argument, trying to make an issue out of nothing.
I already explained how people see different things as fun. You can find it on your time. Because offering suggestions on how to help is pointless I suppose seeing how the other thread went 9 pages long.
Bad faith argument? Are we having an argument? All I see is you questioning me, then me explaining my motives, then you accusing me of having bad faith in my 'argument'.
And yes, I understand people see different things as fun. That's... kind of the point, really. I'm trying to figure out how to close the gap between myself and those people without forcing either of us to meaningfully change in ways we do not wish to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: Look I'm giving up trying to explain, people think I'm trying to beat you down and its ridiculous.
Could you explain what you are trying to do? Perhaps that's the issue.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good.
Is it? Most people in the other thread were bored because there wasn't enough "variety" or things to shoot at that weren't baneblades.
Making baneblades more expensive just means I bring less "variety."
I don't think anyone in the other thread was saying they wouldn't want to play against my superheavy tank company because they thought it was op. I think (if I drew the right lessons from it) they meant they wouldn't play against it because they thought it was boring.
Maybe I drew the wrong conclusion.
You mean THIS? It shows a slight lack of critical thinking. I even addressed the fact by doing what I suggested he would have less issues at his new scene. Which in the other thread he implied he did. I never suggested they were OP, I only discussed his two points which are.
-I only take 3 because one or two die really fast. -People are seeing me as a bandwagoning powergamer.
You might be remembering portions of the following quote, where he does point out 2 baneblades have a weakness:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag wrote: Bringing less than 3 baneblades = not playing your army at all? Okay, I guess? Just keep wrecking people, and lamenting that you don't know what to do about it. I mean seriously.
Do you read my posts? There are dozens of reasons to bring 3, as well as some reasons not to, in the fluff. We could take it to PMs but I am happy to talk the fluff over with you surrounding Imperial superheavies.
Also, it's worth noting that bringing 2 baneblades is essentially bringing 0; they're not very durable for their points (someone did the math on this, I think it's like 24 pts per T8 3+ wound, which is less tough than LRBTs or Land Raiders point for point) and so people with "reasonable" lists can actually quite easily alpha-strike them if they've brought enough anti-tank to also deal with LRBTs and Land Raiders. (my Baneblades come out to almost exactly 21 pts per T8 3+ wound, and they're not very 'optimized'. Leman Russes are ~13 points per T8 3+ wound. Land Raiders are ~20 points per T8 2+ wound. And this is after the point discount on the superheavies).
However he's saying that because 2 is weaker, that's why he's bringing 3, not that his army has an inherent problem with alpha strikers. This is where things went off the rails because Waaaaghpower said that he could bring two or fewer baneblades if he brought conscripts (the idea being that Baneblades would be far less susceptible to alpha strikers if they're bubblewrapped). I guess this came about because Unit, like in the quote in your message, pointed out he doesn't have the points to spare to bring more stuff when the three baneblades gobble it up. However we then pointed out the inherent fallacy in that one because Waaaghpower is essentially encouraging Unit to defy his own fluff AND bring an OP unit to fix a problem that is already solved by simply having 3 baneblades. This then devolved into an argument about whether or not Baneblades were OP or how to optimally field them. Which is why some of the arguments here have been going in circles; they're all collectively trying to solve a "problem" with Unit's army that was never really there.
The ACTUAL problem with Unit's army isn't it's ability to win or lose, but the fact that it's boring to play against (which, I admit, is an actual problem) since regardless of his composition all of the battles basically boil down to "kill three damage sponges while trying to survive". Suggesting him using OP unit choices or optimizing his list for winning won't exactly help the problem since the basic gameplay elements will still remain the same. I think that other thread basically concluded with people agreeing that the very nature of superheavies (small number of REALLY big targets) just inherently don't give much room for variety in play. You can only squeeze so much out of a lemon. I think we ended up working out that a Leman Russ company could potentially provide the target saturation and bubblewrap to allow Unit to bring less than 3 baneblades, but fluff wise that doesn't sit well with him.
With the new prices, 3 superheavies can be only 1200 points of a 2000 point list. I've got a bunch of new models that can fit in the other 800 points, if that helps anything.
They can't be Baneblades, but I've not run an authentic Baneblade company since they got way too expensive at the end of 6th, so no real major change.
Because you say you want to run a fluffy list for fun. But then you go to NOVA where it doesn't make the cut. But you can with some slight changes.
Then you take this fluffy list to the local scene and people call you a powergamer. Which they do because taking nothing but big toys has been the mark of one for a longtime.
So all you have to do is change a little bit of your list for each setting and the respective problems will be solved. Part of that is asking why are you playing. To win? NOVA. For fun? Local scene.
It's at the local scene level where if you start worrying about your rep., you ask yourself the question, "Are my opponents having fun?". Its big part of the hobby no one asks the other person, because in general it is pretty easy to pick up and why that is the case. Like in 6th there was an out-of-town Eldar player, I knew nothing bout him; except you know he was Eldar THE top codex. So I brought the best list I could; it was a slaughter. Except unexpectedly he was the lamb. Because he brought an insanely low-power list I didn't even think was possible. I thought he was going to try to stomp as an out of towner, no rep. to worry about afterall. So I asked for a rematch at the end of the second turn because it wasn't fun and toned down my list to something else. AND we had fun the 2nd time around.
So what the point I'm making is, yea YOU are having fun with your list. But is your opponent? You're expecting way too much from your list, from being able to compete to being able to have a mutually fun pickup game. Maybe the people who think you are a powergamer don't like the strong units in their 'dex, so by playing you just is resigning themselves to a loss.
Quickjager wrote: Because you say you want to run a fluffy list for fun. But then you go to NOVA where it doesn't make the cut. But you can with some slight changes.
Then you take this fluffy list to the local scene and people call you a powergamer. Which they do because taking nothing but big toys has been the mark of one for a longtime.
So all you have to do is change a little bit of your list for each setting and the respective problems will be solved. Part of that is asking why are you playing. To win? NOVA. For fun? Local scene.
It's at the local scene level where if you start worrying about your rep., you ask yourself the question, "Are my opponents having fun?". Its big part of the hobby no one asks the other person, because in general it is pretty easy to pick up and why that is the case. Like in 6th there was an out-of-town Eldar player, I knew nothing bout him; except you know he was Eldar THE top codex. So I brought the best list I could; it was a slaughter. Except unexpectedly he was the lamb. Because he brought an insanely low-power list I didn't even think was possible. I thought he was going to try to stomp as an out of towner, no rep. to worry about afterall. So I asked for a rematch at the end of the second turn because it wasn't fun and toned down my list to something else. AND we had fun the 2nd time around.
So what the point I'm making is, yea YOU are having fun with your list. But is your opponent? You're expecting way too much from your list, from being able to compete to being able to have a mutually fun pickup game. Maybe the people who think you are a powergamer don't like the strong units in their 'dex, so by playing you just is resigning themselves to a loss.
So you've arrowed in on the problem, save for one interpretation: I didn't go to NOVA expecting to win. In fact, I went to NOVA mostly to just have a lot of games in the weekend - the GT offered more games in those three days than any other event. I was surprised I went 4-4, rather than, say, 2-6 which is what I bet my friend I would end up with.
So I am asking how do I change my list to fit the more casual side? I don't mind going even 0-8 at NOVA, because at least the army got to see the table and I got to throw some dice. I'd like to know how to make it more casual while still maintaining the core of the army, which is 3 superheavy tanks.
Jesus it doesn't matter what other unit options you have.
Core problem: People don't have fun playing you.
Your solution: ???
Ultimately we can't play the games for you. Yeah it sucks that GW turned your army into an OP cheeseball. But it happened. Now you have to deal with the fallout... or not. Play 3 baneblades and crush people's faces off. Remind them at the end it's okay, because you wrote a backstory for your army. That will definitely increase their enjoyment.
MarsNZ wrote: Personally I commend the super-heavy guy in this thread for a.) sticking to a fluffy list which is actually pretty rare for IG players. If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff. And b.) for trying to maintain a calm position in the face of an echo chamber of people who are more interested in venting about their recent loss than considering other viewpoints.
Large tank formations, like Regiments and Divisions, do not consist entirely of tanks.
For example, according to page 138 in this document [https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf], a 1991 Soviet Tank Regiment would contain:
1 HQ 3 Tank Battalions
1 Motorized Rifle Battalion
1 Self Propelled Artillery Battalion
1 AAA Battery
1 Recon Company
1 Engineering Company
1 Medical Company
1 Maintenance Company
1 Supply Company
1 NBC Protection Company
No game is large enough for us to exceed the maximum amount of infantry and artillery available to deploy.
And that's before considering the fact that units can be attached to other formations to provide support for a campaign or battle, such as attaching a tank destroyer battalion to an infantry division to provide enhanced antitank support if enemy armor is expected in force.
So I definitely don't think it's un-fluffy to have armor, artillery, and infantry; in fact, because any given element is rarely deployed without the support of other elements, I'd say it's un-fluffy if there isn't any infantry and artillery backing up the tanks.
Fluff is totally subjective. You can create a backstory for literally anything.
This is a comic book universe. You can write fluff to support any tournament list.
And then Captain Stevens and his faithful cat Mittens said unto the infantry, "thou shalt stay behind, for i have tanks," with Mittens meowing derisively at the conscripts. Mittens slammed his paw into the "drop baneblades" button, and they fell to the battlefield. With nothing to do, the conscripts tried to get fenrisian wolves to play poker. Several were mauled to death, but thankfully a commissar was on hand to shoot one of them in the head, so they wouldn't flee from their task.
Marmatag wrote:Jesus it doesn't matter what other unit options you have.
Core problem: People don't have fun playing you.
Your solution: ???
Ultimately we can't play the games for you. Yeah it sucks that GW turned your army into an OP cheeseball. But it happened. Now you have to deal with the fallout... or not. Play 3 baneblades and crush people's faces off. Remind them at the end it's okay, because you wrote a backstory for your army. That will definitely increase their enjoyment.
So... thanks for the input? Your solution would be that I not play the army, I take it?
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
MarsNZ wrote: Personally I commend the super-heavy guy in this thread for a.) sticking to a fluffy list which is actually pretty rare for IG players. If you're mixing inf/arm/mech your list is diverging from fluff. And b.) for trying to maintain a calm position in the face of an echo chamber of people who are more interested in venting about their recent loss than considering other viewpoints.
Just an FYI, large tank formations, like Regiments and Divisions, do not consist entirely of tanks.
For example, according to page 138 in this document [https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-3.pdf], a 1991 Soviet Tank Regiment would contain: 1 HQ 3 Tank Battalions 1 Motorized Rifle Battalion 1 Self Propelled Artillery Battalion 1 AAA Battery 1 Recon Company 1 Engineering Company 1 Medical Company 1 Maintenance Company 1 Supply Company 1 NBC Protection Company
No game is large enough for us to exceed the maximum amount of infantry and artillery available to deploy.
And that's before considering the fact that units can be attached to other formations to provide support for a campaign or battle, such as attaching a tank destroyer battalion to an infantry division to provide enhanced antitank support if enemy armor is expected in force.
So I definitely don't think it's un-fluffy to have armor, artillery, and infantry; in fact, because any given element is rarely deployed without the support of other elements, I'd say it's un-fluffy if there isn't any infantry and artillery backing up the tanks.
It is, sadly, for the IG in 40k. Regiments are more commonly monotype than not, because of problems stemming from the Horus Heresy. Here's a screenshot of the relevant bit from the current AM Codex.
Marmatag wrote:Fluff is totally subjective. You can create a backstory for literally anything.
This is a comic book universe. You can write fluff to support any tournament list.
This is essentially true, though I do try to have more justification for my fluff than most.
Point for point, the Space Marine superheavy tanks are dramatically more capable than their IG counterparts, especially in resiliency, even if more expensive in absolute terms. Knights may not have the raw firepower of the IG superheavy tanks, but with 24 wounds with a 5++ vs 26 wounds without one, better BS/WS, and some powerful CC ability, they don't appear too far off on terms of raw power (though probably cannot be supported quite as capably).
No, SM super heavies are definitely not.
Comparing: SM tanks are higher Toughness and have a better save, which scales equivalently with their cost. They're also slightly more accurate, but lack regiment bonuses which easily compensate for that difference, making all things equal.
Hrm, that resiliency is *huge*. A Space Marine SH is going to require an average of 34 BS3+ lascannon shots to kill. A Baneblade will require only 20 (EDIT: as an interesting note, in 7E, when tanks were seen as too fragile and Baneblades were seen as garbage, it took an average of 40 Lascannons hitting on a 3+, in 5E that would have required 82). That is a huge gap in resiliency. Regiment bonuses are nice...but only apply to superheavies in certain situations (IIRC they dont apply to a single superheavy taken as an auxiliary detachment), and something like rerolling 1's to hit while stationary isnt close to matching natural BS3+ either, just as treating AP-1 weapons as AP0 isnt matching a natural 2+ really either.
So let's compare damage.
A Shadowsword, compared to a Cerberus, gets twice as many shots, higher Strength (which helps against T8,) re-rolls against Titanic enemies, better AP, and better damage.
The Shadowsword I will grant has an overpowered weapon for its cost. That said, a Cerberus is also (ostensibly) a smaller vehicle not meant to mount weapons as fearsome, and has greater resiliency.
A Baneblade, compared to a Fellblade, lacks the crappy offhand AT fire, but gets 50% more shots, higher strength, and 50% more damage.
At lower accuracy with dramatically less resiliency, and the sponson AT weapons on the Fellblade are dramatically more capable than anything the Baneblade brings. Quad lascannons or Rapier Laser Destroyers are fearsome weapons.
IG tanks win hands down. They slightly lose in the durability department
*Dramatically*, not slightly. That 2+ save really does make a lot of difference. Both Baneblades and Russ tanks lost a *lot* of resiliency relative to counterparts and each other with this edition. A Baneblade used to be equivalent to 3 Russ tanks and about equivalent to a Fellblade. Russ tanks used to be an entirely different class of resiliency next to things like Rhinos (the +1T and extra 2 wounds done come anywhere close to matching the old AV14 vs AV11 gap, particularly against weapons like Lascannons) and broadly equivalent to a Land Raider for most purposes (and in fact, in 2E, were on par or even better armored than Land Raiders). Such is no longer the case.
but considering that they're cheaper and have approximately twice the firepower, it's No Contest.
They're cheaper. Theyre also less accurate and resilient. Firepower depends on variant and options, a Fellblade with quad Lascannon sponsons is, point for point, hardly at a loss to a Baneblade even with 4 LC/HB sponsons, and in fact with just the two sets of quad BS3+ lascannons is exceeding the firepower output on the baneblade relative to what that quad sponson baneblade is throwing back with all weapons at the Fellblade, and about doubling the total wound output on a Baneblade relative to what its taking back once factoring in all weapons (if im remembering the fellblade cannon right at 2d6 S8 -3ASM Damage3 BS3+)
Why don't you just find someone else with three superheavy tanks or similar units and fight against them. Then you two can have fun just sitting and rolling dice and shooting at each other? Problem solved.
Personally I am like the people here who think that three superheavy tanks is too many. I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.
bbekins wrote: Why don't you just find someone else with three superheavy tanks or similar units and fight against them. Then you two can have fun just sitting and rolling dice and shooting at each other? Problem solved.
Personally I am like the people here who think that three superheavy tanks is too many. I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.
I would love to. In fact, the thundering blows of superheavies duking it out is awesome, and I do that quite often, as often as possible!
As for your second point: can I ask why you feel that way?
Problem is that Baneblades and co were seen as a worthless waste of money before, so the majority of people don't own any (or own very little, like me). However with the general perception that the codex is OP, this has the inverse effect of people afraid to buy them for fear of the stigma of being seen as "that guy". That only leaves a handful of people like him who collected them before the buff (since, as many have pointed out, three baneblades isn't actually powerful and most WAAC players would just buy conscripts instead).
For what it's worth I've promised him a game with what superheavies I have. But having about a state and the niagara falls between us, that game isn't going to come for some time.
bbekins wrote: I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.
This ship sailed many years ago and was sunk permanently two editions ago when GW made Superheavy Knights their own army.
I've been deliberately avoiding this conversation, but I have three superheavies: A baneblade, a stormlord, and a PRAETOR ARMORED ASSAULT LAUNCHER.
I don't ever really run any of the three except the stormlord, and I normally feel kinda bad about even running that one. I might consider the baneblade now with the point reduction, but probably not both in the same list. I just like foot guard too much.
I don't think I'd ever turn down a game against three baneblades though. Far as I'm concerned, they're among the least egregious of any of the superheavies. I'd be far more bothered by someone showing up with three stormlords. Those things are seriously unfair. At this point though, I'd feel better about any three superheavies than, say, 14+ Russes.
Marmatag wrote: The solution would be to unmarry yourself from the restriction of playing 3 baneblades if your opponent has no chance in hell of handling them.
Look i mean it's not rocket science. If your opponent isn't having fun in a casual game, and that matters to you, do something about it.
So I should sacrifice my own enjoyment of the game for their sake.
Yeah, I was trying to work through how I'd do that with my GK even as I typed my last comment. I guess try to deep strike as much of them as close as possible, and hope I could melee them down. It would certainly be an uphill battle though.
Look dude. Your army extremely efficient in terms of 40k. You have 1 tpye of unit so my specail weapons can't specialize. Most of my weapons are useless.The games goes like this - you likely go first - and you likely destroy my 3 best units + some change. Now I hit back with the rest of my army and maybe destroy 1 baneblade. Then most of my army is destroyed and I can't even hurt a baneblade. It's just freaking dumb and you know it. You want your opponent to have a fair chance? Let him go first.
Xenomancers wrote: Look dude. Your army extremely efficient in terms of 40k. You have 1 tpye of unit so my specail weapons can't specialize. Most of my weapons are useless.The games goes like this - you likely go first - and you likely destroy my 3 best units + some change. Now I hit back with the rest of my army and maybe destroy 1 baneblade. Then most of my army is destroyed and I can't even hurt a baneblade. It's just freaking dumb and you know it. You want your opponent to have a fair chance? Let him go first.
That's... never been true until now.
And now that it is true, yeah, I'll try letting my opponent go first. That's actually a pretty badass idea - giving my opponent the first turn. Thanks for the input! I'll try that this weekend.
Marmatag wrote: The solution would be to unmarry yourself from the restriction of playing 3 baneblades if your opponent has no chance in hell of handling them.
Look i mean it's not rocket science. If your opponent isn't having fun in a casual game, and that matters to you, do something about it.
So I should sacrifice my own enjoyment of the game for their sake.
Why can't the same be expected of them?
So you can only have fun if you play all 3 tanks? That screams "my way or the high way."
Marmatag wrote: The solution would be to unmarry yourself from the restriction of playing 3 baneblades if your opponent has no chance in hell of handling them.
Look i mean it's not rocket science. If your opponent isn't having fun in a casual game, and that matters to you, do something about it.
So I should sacrifice my own enjoyment of the game for their sake.
Why can't the same be expected of them?
So you can only have fun if you play all 3 tanks? That screams "my way or the high way."
Well, as I mentioned before, I like to play fluffy. Each battle is something I write about afterwards.
If I write "My regiment went to fight the Blood Angels, but brought one tank, and it was blown up when the first volley of lascannons fired before it even sensed the enemy were there." I don't really add anything meaningful to my fluff. Now, if I am alongside another Guard regiment, I can spend the rest of that fluff explaining how they worked together, perhaps some rivalry that happened between the regimental/company commanders in the battlegroup because of such a telling loss, or perhaps a scene where the commissar has words with the other regiment's commissar or something.
But if it's just my tank regiment by itself, then I spend most of the fluff contriving why the other 20-21 tanks in the regiment were off masturbating in a corner and these one or two vehicles were permitted to wander around alone.
I get most of my joy out of the fluff that arises naturally from playing the game - bringing only 1 or 2 vehicles hinders my ability to get meaningful progress.
Think of my regiment as a D&D character (or perhaps as a party of D&D characters with each company being a character). Trying to write a meaningful story about how a character pokes out both his eyes before battle to make it more fair gets kind of old fast, especially if it's a character that doesn't otherwise care about that sort of thing. For every single battle you have to contrive a reason for him to be missing an arm, or having broken gear, or somesuch. Every. Single. Fight.
Xenomancers wrote: Look dude. Your army extremely efficient in terms of 40k. You have 1 tpye of unit so my specail weapons can't specialize. Most of my weapons are useless.The games goes like this - you likely go first - and you likely destroy my 3 best units + some change. Now I hit back with the rest of my army and maybe destroy 1 baneblade. Then most of my army is destroyed and I can't even hurt a baneblade. It's just freaking dumb and you know it. You want your opponent to have a fair chance? Let him go first.
That's... never been true until now.
And now that it is true, yeah, I'll try letting my opponent go first. That's actually a pretty badass idea - giving my opponent the first turn. Thanks for the input! I'll try that this weekend.
Well think about it this way. In war when you are outmatched you run away - you don't just fight to the death when you don't have the weapons to fight the enemy. The only realistic scenerio that 3 super heavy tanks would be fighting a small scrimmish force would be if the scrimmish for ambushed it anyways.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: well considering he owns something like 12 superheavies (in counting) it's basically like....four shoeboxes?
I own 22 vehicles.
For most of the 4k though it'd be 1 company, and then something else. Not sure what, because I think more baneblades would break things, but I have started building that new regiment around those scotia grendel models.
EDIT:
Strictly speaking, I own 22 superheavies, divided into seven companies of three and a regimental command vehicle.
There are also 4 trojans, 1 atlas, 1 salamander, and 1 chimera in the support company.
I also have a few random russes just thrown in a cardboard box and in varying states of disrepair, a few Malcadors from when they were superheavy in the Heresy and I used them as outrider tanks for the larger vehicles, and some Hydras, which I might start to bring more (though I am worried they will make the problem worse instead of better, since it's just MORE TANKS).
I wouldn't worry about taking hydras; they make cool looking support units but at 5+ to hit most targets they are not doing too much. Even against proper fliers they are only hitting on 4+. The only targets that have cause for concern are flying units without hard to hit, which are hit on 3+. So jetbike and jump armies may hate them.
I usually manage 2k fine in a GW case with rules/water and maybe a box in a backpack. Not too bad but I couldn't really double. It doesn't help that I have a decent amount of metal and resin models, which are heavier.
Xenomancers wrote: Honestly adding 2k more AM to the table is a really bad idea. It's just increasing the chance of being destroyed on turn 1.
So you're saying to start a new army entirely?
I've looked at Primaris Marines today...
.... because they are getting a neat hovertank superheavy.
*hangs head in shame*
Have you considered building a list with lighter super-heavies in support of a baneblade? For insance, a baneblade leading a squadron of malcador/macharius? They would still be part of the same regiment and I could well imagine a single baneblade being made lead tank of a formation of lighter super-heavies. The lighter classes are also far from OP, especially after the codex hit.
Xenomancers wrote: Honestly adding 2k more AM to the table is a really bad idea. It's just increasing the chance of being destroyed on turn 1.
So you're saying to start a new army entirely?
I've looked at Primaris Marines today...
.... because they are getting a neat hovertank superheavy.
*hangs head in shame*
Have you considered building a list with lighter super-heavies in support of a baneblade? For insance, a baneblade leading a squadron of malcador/macharius? They would still be part of the same regiment and I could well imagine a single baneblade being made lead tank of a formation of lighter super-heavies. The lighter classes are also far from OP, especially after the codex hit.
I have considered this, actually. In 30k, I did this a lot, when the Malcador was a superheavy.
Sadly, it's no longer a superheavy, so that's thrown aside.
I'd have to buy Machariuses, but they're certainly neat looking! I just don't have the dosh in my plans yet; probably will get there soon!
Lastly: I'm doing this where I can already My tank destruction company should rightly be Shadowswords, but I use Valdors because I think they're fluffier for a urban-fighting-style regiment. At least in the novels, Shadowswords have that crippling problem where they have to disconnect their motor from their drivetrain to charge the main armament's capacitors, and I think any sensible superheavy tank commander would keep them WELL away from urban environments, where being motionless after a shot that gives a position away as readily as a volcano cannon would is awful, and moving but being unable to use the main armament again until you stop only slightly less crippling.
bbekins wrote: Why don't you just find someone else with three superheavy tanks or similar units and fight against them. Then you two can have fun just sitting and rolling dice and shooting at each other? Problem solved.
Personally I am like the people here who think that three superheavy tanks is too many. I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.
I would love to. In fact, the thundering blows of superheavies duking it out is awesome, and I do that quite often, as often as possible!
As for your second point: can I ask why you feel that way?
Personal Preference. I prefer a game that focuses on the infantry squads with the characters/elites and the tanks and superheavy tanks in supporting roles.
Vaktathi wrote:
bbekins wrote: I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.
This ship sailed many years ago and was sunk permanently two editions ago when GW made Superheavy Knights their own army.
I know. I don't like imperial knights and I think for them to be their own army is just stupid.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I have considered this, actually. In 30k, I did this a lot, when the Malcador was a superheavy.
Sadly, it's no longer a superheavy, so that's thrown aside.
That's a shame. Does the lack of the Titanic keyword really matter that much? They are super-heavies in almost all other respects. Compare them to Valdor and it is basically 2w difference. The Valdor is just a Malcador variant after all. I can see the loss of Steel Behemoth being annoying, although I would run them as Tallarn which mimics the effect pretty well really. Fluff wise, Malcadors would fit with a super-heavy regiment very well. Out of interest, what Malcadors do you actually have? I am always tempted to get an Infernus, such a cool looking tank.
bbekins wrote: Why don't you just find someone else with three superheavy tanks or similar units and fight against them. Then you two can have fun just sitting and rolling dice and shooting at each other? Problem solved.
Personally I am like the people here who think that three superheavy tanks is too many. I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.
I would love to. In fact, the thundering blows of superheavies duking it out is awesome, and I do that quite often, as often as possible!
As for your second point: can I ask why you feel that way?
Personal Preference. I prefer a game that focuses on the infantry squads with the characters/elites and the tanks and superheavy tanks in supporting roles.
Vaktathi wrote:
bbekins wrote: I liked it way back when even the number of normal tanks like a Leman Russ or a Predator were limited in the army and it was more squads being the core of every army.
This ship sailed many years ago and was sunk permanently two editions ago when GW made Superheavy Knights their own army.
I know. I don't like imperial knights and I think for them to be their own army is just stupid.
That's a fair opinion! I was drawn to 40k because it had tank company rules, etc. at 28mm which few other games had, but I can totally see the desire for infantry rather than tanks to be the focus. In fact, the gentleman who got me into the game when we were much younger played an assault infantry regiment for storming positions (think like DKOK mixed with Starship Troopers (the movie)). It's partly why I decided on armour (specifically an armoured assault / siege regiment) because I figured we'd be fighting side by side a lot and it would go well. But times change.
Trickstick wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I have considered this, actually. In 30k, I did this a lot, when the Malcador was a superheavy.
Sadly, it's no longer a superheavy, so that's thrown aside.
That's a shame. Does the lack of the Titanic keyword really matter that much? They are super-heavies in almost all other respects. Compare them to Valdor and it is basically 2w difference. The Valdor is just a Malcador variant after all. I can see the loss of Steel Behemoth being annoying, although I would run them as Tallarn which mimics the effect pretty well really. Fluff wise, Malcadors would fit with a super-heavy regiment very well. Out of interest, what Malcadors do you actually have? I am always tempted to get an Infernus, such a cool looking tank.
The biggest issue is actually how to field them. I either have to bring a goon in a chimera as the "company commander" for a malcador company (since they're heavy support and their detachment needs an HQ) or a tank commander in a Leman Russ (which also doesn't make sense in the context of them being fielded as an outrider squadron for a superheavy regiment). None of the HQ's really make sense in the context of "Malcadors in a superheavy regiment being used as a skirmisher screen / outriders / fast cavalry." Outside of the heresy they're not fast anyways, though, but that matters less. Though ironically if my regiment goes with Tallarn the Baneblades will rapidly outpace the Malcadors, which is hilarious.
The other issue is that they're downright worse than LRBTs for their cost, which sort of makes me giggle, but yeah, they're not bad.
To answer your last question: I have 2 Infernuses, 3 Battletanks, 1 Annihilator, and 3 'valdors' if those count. Of my regiment, only the 3 Valdor's remain post-8th edition because of the TO&E problems mentioned above. So far, I've fluffed it that the older tanks finally broke down (since Malcadors are supposed to be especially rare in 40k because people forgot how to repair their reactors) and were abandoned, or eventually cannibalized to repair the Valdors. ATM the tanks are just sitting around being sad that they never see the table.
You know, I was about to suggest a Salamander command but turns out it is only an elite. Only other options I can think of involve a Chimera, such as a Primaris and some battle psykers or something. Still a bit lame to bring like 5 infantry models when you are running a tank army.
The biggest issue is actually how to field them. I either have to bring a goon in a chimera as the "company commander" for a malcador company (since they're heavy support and their detachment needs an HQ) or a tank commander in a Leman Russ (which also doesn't make sense in the context of them being fielded as an outrider squadron for a superheavy regiment). None of the HQ's really make sense in the context of "Malcadors in a superheavy regiment being used as a skirmisher screen / outriders / fast cavalry." Outside of the heresy they're not fast anyways, though, but that matters less. Though ironically if my regiment goes with Tallarn the Baneblades will rapidly outpace the Malcadors, which is hilarious.
You could always soup in a Tech-Priest as HQ. You'd lose your regiment bonus, but hey, you're trying to go fluffy, right? Probably makes sense that you'd have one of those floating around somewhere.
Hmm, could you use a Trojan and just fluff a company commander as the Quartermaster or something? Would make sense for him to ride in a Trojan to keep track of ammo. Consider it a 30pt tax.
Trojan with techpriest, 4 servitors and a company commander "Deputy quartermaster". Could work, a bit fluffy and looks cool to have.
Trickstick wrote:You know, I was about to suggest a Salamander command but turns out it is only an elite. Only other options I can think of involve a Chimera, such as a Primaris and some battle psykers or something. Still a bit lame to bring like 5 infantry models when you are running a tank army.
Yes, and it's a bit weird that the outrider screening squadrons (think like, cavalry or velites in a pre-Marian Reforms Roman sense) have psyker support or whatever.
The biggest issue is actually how to field them. I either have to bring a goon in a chimera as the "company commander" for a malcador company (since they're heavy support and their detachment needs an HQ) or a tank commander in a Leman Russ (which also doesn't make sense in the context of them being fielded as an outrider squadron for a superheavy regiment). None of the HQ's really make sense in the context of "Malcadors in a superheavy regiment being used as a skirmisher screen / outriders / fast cavalry." Outside of the heresy they're not fast anyways, though, but that matters less. Though ironically if my regiment goes with Tallarn the Baneblades will rapidly outpace the Malcadors, which is hilarious.
You could always soup in a Tech-Priest as HQ. You'd lose your regiment bonus, but hey, you're trying to go fluffy, right? Probably makes sense that you'd have one of those floating around somewhere.
Actually, I think you wouldn't lose your soup as Techpriest Enginseers are on the list of units that don't cause you to use your soup - and it's the unit name, not the bolded keyword.
That said, still a no-go, as then they can't board transports, and the whole reason to bring the Malcador company is to have a fast-moving 'screen' type unit, like the superheavy tank's version of cavalry.
My tanks are divided into Line, Assault, Tank Destruction, Breakthrough, and Transport companies. The Malcadors were in the Outrider companies, and the Machariuses... I don't have any yet but they could perhaps be just like "Line (Reserve)" or something.
Trickstick wrote: Hmm, could you use a Trojan and just fluff a company commander as the Quartermaster or something? Would make sense for him to ride in a Trojan to keep track of ammo. Consider it a 30pt tax.
Trojan with techpriest, 4 servitors and a company commander "Deputy quartermaster". Could work, a bit fluffy and looks cool to have.
That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.
EDIT:
A salamander command vehicle would be perfect but it's elite. DERP. Good catch anyways Trickstick.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.
Well you don't have to match your fluff organisation exactly to the FOC. Even though the HQ would be in the same FOC as the Malcadors, there is no reason it couldn't be hanging around with your Baneblade and be part of that squadron. Say the officer is somehow the liason between the regiment and the mechanicus, deployed because correct supply and repair of a baneblade is so important. I'm thinking like an officer of the fleet but more focused on logistics. Logistical officer sounds about right.
Xenomancers wrote: Honestly adding 2k more AM to the table is a really bad idea. It's just increasing the chance of being destroyed on turn 1.
So you're saying to start a new army entirely?
I've looked at Primaris Marines today...
.... because they are getting a neat hovertank superheavy.
*hangs head in shame*
Guard are really over the top it's not just your super heavies. honestly I think playing a whole list of conscripts and LR is even better than your baneblades. I have a big primaris army and it's my most fun list to play. People enjoy playing against it.
That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.
How long does a superheavy tank division operate in the field? Can they deploy for extended periods of time? I'm picturing people on rotating shifts inside the tank like a modern Naval ship. It's kind of a weird concept, but I could see that being a thing in 40k, particularly since there exists stuff like Stormlords which just have room for, what, 30 extra people inside them? It might make sense that they would have a quartermaster tagging along, were that the case.
That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.
How long does a superheavy tank division operate in the field? Can they deploy for extended periods of time? I'm picturing people on rotating shifts inside the tank like a modern Naval ship. It's kind of a weird concept, but I could see that being a thing in 40k, particularly since there exists stuff like Stormlords which just have room for, what, 30 extra people inside them? It might make sense that they would have a quartermaster tagging along, were that the case.
I loved the "Belly of the Beast" section in the new codex (p43). It did a great job of what the inside of a Baneblade is really like. It is a barely understood religious relic, covered in purity seals, prayer scrolls and sacred oils. Guard models don't convey the religious nature of practically everything they do. They have prayers for reloading...
That could work, though it'd be a bit silly why the quartermasters are out riding around with the Malcador scout/cavalry/skirmisher squadrons and not... well, quartermastering.
How long does a superheavy tank division operate in the field? Can they deploy for extended periods of time? I'm picturing people on rotating shifts inside the tank like a modern Naval ship. It's kind of a weird concept, but I could see that being a thing in 40k, particularly since there exists stuff like Stormlords which just have room for, what, 30 extra people inside them? It might make sense that they would have a quartermaster tagging along, were that the case.
The Baneblade in the novel Baneblade had sleeping quarters to rotate personel on longer mission.
The tension here, Unit, is that there's a difference between something being less expensive and costed appropriately, and something being less expensive without changing its capabilities.
If Baneblades costed less, you could fit more in your list. That does make your list less skewed, but not less powerful. People take issue with that because it's a lot like an Eldar player in 7th with an all-wraithknight list going "hey, so why don't we just play with 200 point wraithknights then? Then I could fit in some infantry!
So you have people who say playing against lists that consist of only one model type are generally less interactive. This is true to an extent IMO - I generally find skew lists an interesting challenge, but not something I'd want to play against more than 1-2 times, wheras I can play against someone's more varied TAC list a dozen times without getting bored.
Separately, people are stating that Baneblades are undercosted for what they do. Which is at least probable, for some baneblade builds.
To be completely honest, you've got your fluff reason for wanting to run 3 baneblades, but your gameplay reasoning...it's a bit shaky. You only give up a single CP for switching from 1 Super-Heavy detachment to 2 Supreme Command detachments. Guard HQs are useful and not expensive, between Commanders, Command Tanks, lord Commissars, and Primaris Psykers, you can bring a bunch. You still get regiments (you could even choose a different regiment for each tank, if you wanted to give the individual commanders personality) and it'd make it much easier to run a TAC rather than a skew list at 2k. But if you want to run 3, thats perfectly fine, I'd just keep games at 2500 or above if you don't want to run into the issue of people getting a bit bored playing against the list.
Why would GW put a Super Heavy Detachment in that's better than the just take one detachment if they didn't want to encourage people to fill it out? Its like saying you shouldn't take a air wing Detachment because you can put 2 in the others anyway.
Baneblades are pretty cool, especially as the models are the only IG tanks with actual suspension, but I cannot fathom the complaining about them - they NEEDED this buff, especially given that a Laspred with some lucky rolls can kill one in a single turn, and thats before we factor in the other AT weapons supporting it.
master of ordinance wrote: especially given that a Laspred with some lucky rolls can kill one in a single turn
Wait. Wait.
A laspred is a predator that has the twin lascannon and then two lascannon sponsons... right?
Even if you literally rolled nothing but 6s always, the most you could ever have is 24 damage from that. Baneblades have 26 wounds.
If you had the autocannon and two lascannons, and you rolled nothing but 6s always, then you would get 30 wounds. Total. Maybe.
Note that even this is about as likely a thing to have happen as a conscript squad lasgunning a Land Raider to death in one round. It's Not A Good Argument To Make.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean, I simulate max damage on the autocannon alone happening about 7 times out of 10000 tries.
WatcherZero wrote: Why would GW put a Super Heavy Detachment in that's better than the just take one detachment if they didn't want to encourage people to fill it out? Its like saying you shouldn't take a air wing Detachment because you can put 2 in the others anyway.
Oh they want people to buy the bigger models alright costs them 5p per sprue costs you £95, that's not the point though its that they've once again chased profits over good game design.
That's not quite right. You have to include all of the overheads too. Also, having production in the UK instead of China will dramatically increase costs.
JNAProductions wrote: Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.
Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?
Edit: Also, firepower:
Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.
A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)
Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.
What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.
Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.
I edited some math in. The Stormsurge is cheaper, yes. But worse.
Yes, which is about what you would expect, right? The cheaper unit is worse?
Also don't forget the Stormsurge can do 4d3 mortal wounds as well, essentially automatically if it has Markerlight support.
About half as good.
And 4d3 mortal wounds, with support, on a 4+ (rerolling ones). 3+ if it's anchored. That's an average of 6.22 mortal wounds, ASSUMING MARKERLIGHT SUPPORT. The Baneblade does more damage EVERY TURN without any support.
Something is wrong here.
I'm assuming a Stormsurge with shield generator, pulse driver cannon, ATS, and stim injector, and a base baneblade, and assuming that the SS has its anchors deployed and is not using its destroyer missiles.
I get that the baneblade cannon kills 3.78 MEQ, the autocannon kills 0.34, the twin HB kills 1, and the demo cannon kills 1.45, for 6.57.
The SS's main gun kills 1.11 (twice this if 10+ MEQs) and its various other systems kill 6.73. So the SS is very slightly better.
Against each other -- the baneblade cannon does 4.59, the AC does 0.42, the twin HB does 0.41, and the demo cannon does 1.7, for a total of 7.13.
The SS's main gun does 3.14 and its other weapons systems do 3.32, for a total of 6.46. So the BB is about 1/6 better.
On the other hand, if the SS has markerlight support and can use its destroyer missiles, it becomes much better.
***
They are about even.
Automatically Appended Next Post: With full ML support, the stprmsurge does about 18 wounds to the baneblade if it pops all its missiles.
I did not assume anchors deployed, since that's, bare minimum, a turn two thing.
In addition, if we're assuming Markerlight support for the Stormsurge, we should probably assume stuff like Enginseers for the Baneblade and Command Points, for Take Cover and whatnot.
JNAProductions wrote: I did not assume anchors deployed, since that's, bare minimum, a turn two thing.
In addition, if we're assuming Markerlight support for the Stormsurge, we should probably assume stuff like Enginseers for the Baneblade and Command Points, for Take Cover and whatnot.
Well, firing the demolisher cannon and burst cannons are themselves not things you can really do in Turn 1, usually.
I didn't assume ML support in my math; if the SS DOES get it, though, it does a very great deal of damage.
Anyway, the point is that they are not really far off from each other.
JNAProductions wrote: I did not assume anchors deployed, since that's, bare minimum, a turn two thing.
In addition, if we're assuming Markerlight support for the Stormsurge, we should probably assume stuff like Enginseers for the Baneblade and Command Points, for Take Cover and whatnot.
Well, firing the demolisher cannon and burst cannons are themselves not things you can really do in Turn 1, usually.
I didn't assume ML support in my math; if the SS DOES get it, though, it does a very great deal of damage.
Anyway, the point is that they are not really far off from each other.
For one turn. Then it's out of Destroyer Missiles. (Admittedly, makes for a good Alpha Strike, but still.)
The Baneblade can fire at full power until it takes half wounds, and can fire all its guns until it's dead.
Edit: Also, how on earth do you get 24 HB shots killing one Marine?
24 shots is 12 hits.
Is 8 wounds.
Is 4 dead Marines.
The Baneblade can fire at full power until it takes half wounds, and can fire all its guns until it's dead.
Edit: Also, how on earth do you get 24 HB shots killing one Marine?
24 shots is 12 hits.
Is 8 wounds.
Is 4 dead Marines.
I used a base baneblade, which just has the twin HB, If you want to factor in the cost of sponsons, let the SS get the points in markerlights or gun drones.
Anyway... one is not actually much better than the other. They are about the same, the value of the "about" depending on specific circumstances.
JNAProductions wrote: 74 points to kill a MEQ with a Stormsurge.
67 points to kill a MEQ with a Baneblade.
Neither is efficient at that-the Baneblade is better, though.
And in addition, it's much, MUCH easier to kill off Markerlight support than it is to put 13 wounds on a Baneblade. Factor that in.
Actually it's hot hard for a SS, provided it has ML and the tank doesn't pop smoke, to put 13 wounds on a baneblade, due to the missiles
A 7-point difference does not "much better" make -- which is my point. The baneblade is arguably better than the SS, but not hugely so. "Much better" is hyperbole.
So, i think the 3 baneblade "problem" will soon be a thing of the past, once people start seeing more of Magnus and Mortarian in the same 2k point lists.
Huh. I almost want to say that 3x baneblades would vaporize either magnus or morty is rather short order, especially since they can fall back and shoot (I think?).
I mean, the primarch's invlus are still solid, but not many baneblade shots have to sneak by them to do some major damage.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Huh. I almost want to say that 3x baneblades would vaporize either magnus or morty is rather short order, especially since they can fall back and shoot (I think?).
I mean, the primarch's invlus are still solid, but not many baneblade shots have to sneak by them to do some major damage.
Probably. 3 fully loaded baneblades will generally hover around 1700-1800 points. Would you not expect them to be able to remove a 470 point model?
They'd need a solid amount of lascannon sponsons or some to-hit buffs though. My math has 3 baneblade cannons dealing 10 wounds to Mortarion without any kind of psychic buffs. You'd have to supplement that with about 18 BS4+ lascannon shots to finish him off.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Huh. I almost want to say that 3x baneblades would vaporize either magnus or morty is rather short order, especially since they can fall back and shoot (I think?).
I mean, the primarch's invlus are still solid, but not many baneblade shots have to sneak by them to do some major damage.
Oh i agree that things like Shadowswords should still be able to nuke Magnus or Morty in one turn, but, if they get first turn it gets a whole lot harder for them. Either way, if those 2 lists played each other the game would be over on turn 2 and could swing massively in each direction.
The issue i was referring to was another issue. Sure, people are complaining about having to deal with 3 baneblades, but, that is a whole lot easier to deal with than seeing Magnus and Morty on the other side of the table.
A Catachan Baneblade gets to reroll one of the dice for the number of shots it makes and for 1CP it can reroll all failed to Hit rolls and to Wound rolls against a target with the Chaos keyword.
That will nuke the Daemon Primarchs easily, I'm not complaining though, I'll be jumping on that bandwagon.
XT-1984 wrote: A Catachan Baneblade gets to reroll one of the dice for the number of shots it makes and for 1CP it can reroll all failed to Hit rolls and to Wound rolls against a target with the Chaos keyword.
That will nuke the Daemon Primarchs easily, I'm not complaining though, I'll be jumping on that bandwagon.
Assuming the Baneblade is unupgraded vs Mortarion (459pts w/1 CP Stratagem vs 470pts)
11.7 wounds w/the baneblade cannon (assuming you get a full 18 shots on the 3d6 - your average w/the Catachan reroll will be more like 13.5)
4.8 wounds w/the demolisher cannon (assuming you get the full 3 on the d3 and 6 wounds on the D6)
1.2 wounds for the autocannon
.8 wounds for the twin heavy bolters
So 18.5 wounds with the assumption of your absolute best case scenario in terms of number of dice-shots. Hardly easily, particularly since you're using 459pts to shoot 470pts and assuming: 1) You get the Baneblade within 24" intact/unassaulted of Mortarion; 2) Mortarion hasn't used Miasma of Pestilence on himself (-1 to hit would dent the Baneblade's shooting even with the Stratagem); 3) the rest of your army and the DG army aren't tipping the scales one way or the other.
Yeah but who takes an unupgraded Baneblade honestly.
Makes me laugh when I see people say it takes 40 lascannons to kill Mortarion because I've never seen a 2k army with 40 lascannons but I've seen Mortarion die in a single turn most games he has been in.
XT-1984 wrote: Yeah but who takes an unupgraded Baneblade honestly.
Makes me laugh when I see people say it takes 40 lascannons to kill Mortarion because I've never seen a 2k army with 40 lascannons but I've seen Mortarion die in a single turn most games he has been in.
People like to pretend they've never heard of rerolls and support and such.
Mortarion in a competitive list will mulch baneblades, but that's because he's super friends with magnus and a bajillion malefic lords.
Marmatag wrote: The solution would be to unmarry yourself from the restriction of playing 3 baneblades if your opponent has no chance in hell of handling them.
Look i mean it's not rocket science. If your opponent isn't having fun in a casual game, and that matters to you, do something about it.
So I should sacrifice my own enjoyment of the game for their sake.
Why can't the same be expected of them?
So you can only have fun if you play all 3 tanks? That screams "my way or the high way."
Well, as I mentioned before, I like to play fluffy. Each battle is something I write about afterwards.
If someone builds and tailors a list specifically to beat your tanks, and they absolutely crush you, do you still write about it?
Marmatag wrote: The solution would be to unmarry yourself from the restriction of playing 3 baneblades if your opponent has no chance in hell of handling them.
Look i mean it's not rocket science. If your opponent isn't having fun in a casual game, and that matters to you, do something about it.
So I should sacrifice my own enjoyment of the game for their sake.
Why can't the same be expected of them?
So you can only have fun if you play all 3 tanks? That screams "my way or the high way."
Well, as I mentioned before, I like to play fluffy. Each battle is something I write about afterwards.
If someone builds and tailors a list specifically to beat your tanks, and they absolutely crush you, do you still write about it?
Yes!
Usually a lamentation about how there were no other regiments around so we were thrown into the meatgrinder without adequate support against an enemy specialized to destroy us, and the usual doubt and recriminations of the regimental officers and survivors of the massacre about whether such a cold, unfeeling, clueless Imperium is really worth serving...
blaktoof wrote: Most tables have things on them called terrain, can get hard to gun down models behind terrain if it blocks Los.
It's a little hard for models as gigantic as morty and mags (sounds like a cartoon) to get entirely out of LOS. Unless you use cardboard shipping boxes as cover.
Nothing out and out OP looking from the eldar previews.
No double firing tanks, no hordes of cheap troops with multiple orders boosting their efficiency, only one craftworld with a "commmissar" trait (unlike IG where everybody can bring a commissar), no piles of no-line-of-sight firing weapons (with -3 ap for some just because), no ability to re-roll dice for determining heavy weapon shots, looks like only 1 craftworld gets re-rolls of 1 (unlike guard that have that as a doctrine or order), there are no ogre bodyguards with the ability to get buffed to ungodly saving throws coupled with the ability to take hits for T8 tank commanders.
None of that.
So yeah, guard still looking very, very tough. I don't care about tourneys as much. I care about gaming at the game store or with friends. How is a regular army supposed to compete with guard when they've got so many tools?
brother_b wrote: Nothing out and out OP looking from the eldar previews.
No double firing tanks, no hordes of cheap troops with multiple orders boosting their efficiency, only one craftworld with a "commmissar" trait (unlike IG where everybody can bring a commissar), no piles of no-line-of-sight firing weapons (with -3 ap for some just because), no ability to re-roll dice for determining heavy weapon shots, looks like only 1 craftworld gets re-rolls of 1 (unlike guard that have that as a doctrine or order), there are no ogre bodyguards with the ability to get buffed to ungodly saving throws coupled with the ability to take hits for T8 tank commanders.
The double-firing tanks was an awkward after-thought fix to Leman Russ tanks that were largely garbage before and GW didn't want to fix them in the unit or weapon profiles so they tacked on that rule, they didn't think through the blast-to-random-shots effectiveness very well and two of the three non-random shot LR's are still largely seen as poor options even with the double-firing (the Exterminator is one of the few units that sported a Twin Linked weapon to not get its shots doubled...and is for some reason more expensive than a Battlecannon, while the Vanquisher is a terrible tank hunter being only S8 and AP-3 comapred to say the Fire Prism's S12 AP-5 and multi-role ability).
No, Eldar probably won't have something like Orders to boost their efficiency, that has typically been done through Psychic powers that will require casting but are proportionally more powerful (e.g. rerolling all to hit rolls instead of just 1's) , and multi-use, as well as being significantly longer ranged and don't require gimmicks like Voxes.
Yes IG have no-LoS weapons with strong AP, this is not exactly new, the Basilisk has existed in largely the same form since 2E.
Lets wait to see what the Eldar codex actually looks like in its final form. Historically, Eldar have never had anything less than an astoundingly powerful codex release and have always been a top tier power army (save for 5E where they got no codex), there's lots that could change that we simply don't know about yet.
It seems like not a single Eldar preview goes by without mentioning at least one points reduction, so codex Eldar is going to be stronger than Index Eldar for sure. The question is just how big are those points reductions going to be?
brother_b wrote: Nothing out and out OP looking from the eldar previews.
No double firing tanks, no hordes of cheap troops with multiple orders boosting their efficiency, only one craftworld with a "commmissar" trait (unlike IG where everybody can bring a commissar), no piles of no-line-of-sight firing weapons (with -3 ap for some just because), no ability to re-roll dice for determining heavy weapon shots, looks like only 1 craftworld gets re-rolls of 1 (unlike guard that have that as a doctrine or order), there are no ogre bodyguards with the ability to get buffed to ungodly saving throws coupled with the ability to take hits for T8 tank commanders.
None of that.
So yeah, guard still looking very, very tough. I don't care about tourneys as much. I care about gaming at the game store or with friends. How is a regular army supposed to compete with guard when they've got so many tools?
Maybe thats a question for the tactics forum.
So now we're ready to pass judgement on the Eldar codex based on a couple snippets before it's even out? At least you guys are consistent with your "jump to conclusions as fast as we can" reasoning, expect when IG doesn't dominate all tournaments and you tell us to wait for more.
Considering how many points adjustments Eldar are getting, I don't think we'll be able to judge anything about the Eldar codex until we see what the new values are.
brother_b wrote: Nothing out and out OP looking from the eldar previews.
No double firing tanks, no hordes of cheap troops with multiple orders boosting their efficiency, only one craftworld with a "commmissar" trait (unlike IG where everybody can bring a commissar), no piles of no-line-of-sight firing weapons (with -3 ap for some just because), no ability to re-roll dice for determining heavy weapon shots, looks like only 1 craftworld gets re-rolls of 1 (unlike guard that have that as a doctrine or order), there are no ogre bodyguards with the ability to get buffed to ungodly saving throws coupled with the ability to take hits for T8 tank commanders.
None of that.
So yeah, guard still looking very, very tough. I don't care about tourneys as much. I care about gaming at the game store or with friends. How is a regular army supposed to compete with guard when they've got so many tools?
Maybe thats a question for the tactics forum.
....are we judging relative strength of the craftworld rules package by comparing the guard Order+Warlord+Relic+stratagem+trait vs just the traits from the Eldar dex?
I play both, so before I get being accused of being a "guard shill" I have been looking out for good combos from the eldar dex so far.
We do have:
1) A psychic power that wounds based on leadership coupled with the ability to extremely easily lower a unit's leadership by 4 (Hemlock now buffed to -2 aura, it can take the psychic power for an additional -1 right on the same plane, add in super cheap access to Dark Eldar phantasm launchers for another -1 from just a single passed to-hit roll on D3 dice). That seems pretty potent if you ask me.
2) they are the first army that has the -1 to hit stratagem that can easily stack with additonal -1s to hit. Eldar flyers will be -2 to hit base, and they have access to Conceal for a -2 to hit aura.
The real strength of the eldar codex is going to rely on the points adjustments, which we don't yet know, and the way it interacts with the highly competitive Ynnari rules, which stratagems and tactics if any Ynnari will get access to thru Eldar.
Just comparing the traits? Eldar seem to have a simply better version of Valhalla in the form of Iyanden, the -1 to hit trait which we know is consistently a top dog, and a better version of iron Hands and Black Templars. Can't speak to Biel-Tan until we see whether Shuriken wielding units are better now, currently they're almost all overcosted (DAs, Guardians, Windriders, etc). The only other things we know are that Hemlocks (one of the best units already) is getting multiple buffs with access to more powers, -2LD instead of -1LD and probable access to the powerful -1 to hit tactic, and all the psychic powers we've seen so far have been good to awesome. Stratagems haven't looked amazing yet, but we've only seen...four, out of what we normally see which is like 12-15. Remember that we didn't get to see Take Cover until the codex leaked for Guard, so there could be something great CP-wise waiting in the wings for Eldar that we just haven't spotted yet.
brother_b wrote: Nothing out and out OP looking from the eldar previews.
No double firing tanks, no hordes of cheap troops with multiple orders boosting their efficiency, only one craftworld with a "commmissar" trait (unlike IG where everybody can bring a commissar), no piles of no-line-of-sight firing weapons (with -3 ap for some just because), no ability to re-roll dice for determining heavy weapon shots, looks like only 1 craftworld gets re-rolls of 1 (unlike guard that have that as a doctrine or order), there are no ogre bodyguards with the ability to get buffed to ungodly saving throws coupled with the ability to take hits for T8 tank commanders.
None of that.
So yeah, guard still looking very, very tough. I don't care about tourneys as much. I care about gaming at the game store or with friends. How is a regular army supposed to compete with guard when they've got so many tools?
Well, we now know the value of at least one points change: Rangers went from 20 points to 12. Enough points to buy an extra Guardian for every Ranger you had in your list.
ross-128 wrote: Well, we now know the value of at least one points change: Rangers went from 20 points to 12. Enough points to buy an extra Guardian for every Ranger you had in your list.
That's the actual cost? After weapons? I'm serious here because I would be up a MOON if that was the case.
I have 20 rangers that haven't seen play since 4th edition!
ross-128 wrote: Well, we now know the value of at least one points change: Rangers went from 20 points to 12. Enough points to buy an extra Guardian for every Ranger you had in your list.
Where'd you pick that up from? My eldar player is going to be ecstatic. Like, literally ecstatic. He gets creepy weird about rangers.
ross-128 wrote: Well, we now know the value of at least one points change: Rangers went from 20 points to 12. Enough points to buy an extra Guardian for every Ranger you had in your list.
That's the actual cost? After weapons? I'm serious here because I would be up a MOON if that was the case.
I have 20 rangers that haven't seen play since 4th edition!
20 is the current cost of the model before weapons in the Index, and the preview specifically says "from 20 to 12", so I'm going to assume that 12 is also the cost of the model before weapons.
However, the Ranger Long Rifle and Shuriken Pistol both cost 0 points. So I don't think Rangers come with anything that increases their cost.
This is also where you can see the fire prism firing twice (it basically got Grinding Advance), and the ability to put 7th ed. Invisibility on Rangers. Though since it's an Alaitoc strategem and Alaitoc Rangers are already -2 to hit baseline, you'll pretty much only have to use it against BS3+ or to negate enemy +1s.
But wait, there's more, a group of fire prisms can also give each other an imitation of Rowboat's aura for 1CP, while also turning themselves into artillery pieces.
Looks like when the Eldar codex drops, the usual suspects might go back to whining about Eldar, IG will be forgotten, and 40k will be back to business as usual. And then after enough whining one of the Marine sub-factions will probably get a codex that puts them on par with Eldar. :p
Considering most of the buffed stuff are the stuff people shunned last edition, we might instead get eldar players crying that GW screwed them last edition while claiming their codex is still UP, while people give them the line they've been giving IG this entire time.
And I won't give two gaks about it as I bring enough snipers to turn everything into swiss cheese.
Quickjager wrote: Unless Fire Prisms dropped 20-30 points you guys can keep having your pity party.
I'd say somewhere between 10-20 would be balanced enough I'd expect to see them willingly fielded again by the Eldar guys I know. I think 20-30 I'd start expecting to see three a list.
I just played a 1000 pt. with SM against IG. My opponent had 7 psykers and he almost tabled me with smite. I lost a redemptor dreadnought in one turn to 5 or 6 smites. One psyker is 28 pts. He can roll 2d6, smite is only a 5 and there is nothing you can do against it, except being more than 18" away. I had no psyker, and even if i had one he would only be able to deny the witch once. Anyone saying IG is not OP has not playing against smite spam.
Which unit can do D3 mortal wounds, at a chance of 83% for 28 points with almost nothing to do against it, and a small chance of d6 mortal wounds ??
p5freak wrote: I just played a 1000 pt. with SM against IG. My opponent had 7 psykers and he almost tabled me with smite. I lost a redemptor dreadnought in one turn to 5 or 6 smites. One psyker is 28 pts. He can roll 2d6, smite is only a 5 and there is nothing you can do against it, except being more than 18" away. I had no psyker, and even if i had one he would only be able to deny the witch once. Anyone saying IG is not OP has not playing against smite spam.
Which unit can do D3 mortal wounds, at a chance of 83% for 28 points with almost nothing to do against it, and a small chance of d6 mortal wounds ??
Primaris psykers are 40pts IIRC. Astropaths are cheaper, but get a single D6 to cast their smites on. So, one of those two things you guys got wrong.
Also, the thing you can do about Smite is:
1) Have a psyker nearby to deny
2) Have another unit be closer to the enemy than the intended target, Smite can only hit the closest target within 18". Rhinos are good for this.
From a different perspective: If you lost a dreadnought in one turn to 280 points worth of overcharged plasma guns, would you be as annoyed? It's a similar weapon to smite with a similar range band and intended target. That's 14 Marines with plasma guns.
daedalus wrote:Force stave is 12 points and as far as I know, mandatory. I think you got cheated.
Well, i looked the psyker up in the AM codex in the point list and it says 28 pts. there. I didnt know he had a stave, my fault. The guy i played against is very experienced, i dont think he got it wrong.
the_scotsman wrote:
Primaris psykers are 40pts IIRC. Astropaths are cheaper, but get a single D6 to cast their smites on. So, one of those two things you guys got wrong.
Also, the thing you can do about Smite is:
1) Have a psyker nearby to deny
2) Have another unit be closer to the enemy than the intended target, Smite can only hit the closest target within 18". Rhinos are good for this.
I got it wrong with the 28 pts. Anyway, one psyker can only deny one smite, he had seven psykers. He also smited my razorback, the lascan and RL infantry finished my razorback off.
the_scotsman wrote:
From a different perspective: If you lost a dreadnought in one turn to 280 points worth of overcharged plasma guns, would you be as annoyed? It's a similar weapon to smite with a similar range band and intended target. That's 14 Marines with plasma guns.
Its not the same. First you have to make 14 hit rolls with the marines. Hitting on 3s means you fail 5. Thats 9 hits remaining. From these 9 hits you have to wound on a 3 or 4, depending on whether you overcharged or not. If you didnt overcharge you wound on 4, which means 5 successful wounds, i may save 1, i lose 4 wounds. That doesnt kill a redemptor. Even with overcharge its 6, i save one, lose 10 wounds. Badly hurt, but not dead.
Against plasma you have an armor save, or an invuln save. You dont have any of these against smite.
A psyker only needs to make a single roll with 2 dice, and he needs a 5. The chance of succeeding is pretty high, like 2+ on a D6. The psykers were shielded by chimeras and inf squads, no chance to shoot them. Marines i could have easily shot, no characters.
Anyway, which unit in the game can deal d3 mortal wounds at a 83% success chance, for 40 pts., without any armor or invuln sv against it ?
Primaris Psykers are really good. There've been discussions about smite spam lists in various tactica threads using them, astropaths, and GKSS for troops. It's admittedly one of the cheesier things you can do, particularly at a low point level*.
Far as I know, they're the cheapest unit that gets real smite. Next up is inquisitors at 55 points. Current Warlocks get a babysmite at 38 points IIRC, with no one knowing how that'll look when the Codex drops.
Do you remember what the rest of his list looked like? At 1000 points, a max of 2 detachments is recommended per page 214 of the rulebook. I'm not saying he didn't, but I'm curious to know if he fit his list into that recommendation.
* Low point levels are notoriously easy to create massively imbalanced games. See also 1000 point Land Raider or Stormraven lists. Not the same, but similar.
He had 2 HWT, one with lascans, one with RL in cover. A company commander (i think) who gave orders, to those HWT. 3 chimeras and 1 taurox. The chimeras were carrying an infantry squad and 2 psykers. The taurox was carrying 1 psyker. And he had 1 LRBT.
p5freak wrote: He had 2 HWT, one with lascans, one with RL in cover. A company commander (i think) who gave orders, to those HWT. 3 chimeras and 1 taurox. The chimeras were carrying an infantry squad and 2 psykers. The taurox was carrying 1 psyker. And he had 1 LRBT.
Hrm. I didn't put special weapons on anything except the heavy weapons squads. I hit 975 before I added the LRBT.
I feel like the only SM list I would expect to be able to counter that at 1000 points would be a rhino rush or some variation on lascan/assbacks, but I'm not sure what either of those would look like at that point value. Something with a bunch of relatively sacrificial infantry. I'm starting to feel like a broken record.
Regardless, as Unit1126 said, you have some control over what those smites are hitting, and they're really the only thing in that list (barring weapons hidden somewhere) that I'd be genuinely worried about. I think you needed something between the enemy and your redemptor.
p5freak wrote: We talked, and he did make a mistake. He counted only 28 pts for a psyker, not 40.
That stuff is so easy to do with the way GW chose to cost things out, it's infuriating. Especially when there's no consistency to it, sometimes weapons or gear inherent to a unit is built into their cost and they buy it for 0 points, other times it's not. It's super easy to miss or forget stuff, particularly when it's not for wargear you're ever really going to use but comes with the model anyway.
Well, I've seen an AM army doing very well, yesterday.
Baneblade, 3x 30 Conscripts, 4x Leman Russ - 2000 pts.
Very shooty and hard to defeat if played right.
The Marine army got almost tabled.
p5freak wrote: I just played a 1000 pt. with SM against IG. My opponent had 7 psykers and he almost tabled me with smite. I lost a redemptor dreadnought in one turn to 5 or 6 smites. One psyker is 28 pts. He can roll 2d6, smite is only a 5 and there is nothing you can do against it, except being more than 18" away. I had no psyker, and even if i had one he would only be able to deny the witch once. Anyone saying IG is not OP has not playing against smite spam.
Which unit can do D3 mortal wounds, at a chance of 83% for 28 points with almost nothing to do against it, and a small chance of d6 mortal wounds ??
Culexus Assassin. Bam, all those smites go to waste as long as he's the closest target. Then shoot them to death with your D6STR 5 AP-4 that ignores the character restriction when targeting psykers. Now what gets really fun is when you fight a Chaos player with 5+ Malefic Lords, who cost 10 points less, have a 4+ invuln, and go super saiyan whenever they perils. The Culexus can't hurt them reliably because of their invuln but at least he stops most of their damage output. Still, 85 points is pretty cheap as far as anti psyker insurance goes.
Culexus is anti psyker, but otherwise pretty useless. He cannot target non psyker characters. One culexus wouldnt do much against 7 psykers. They have 3 wounds each. He is probably going to kill one per turn, but probably wouldnt live long enough to kill 2-3 psykers.
Did anyone try to use mordian iron guard gunlines? Isnt them quite insane?
Overwatch on a 4+, and ability to produce something like 90+ shots from ten men guardsmen squard (if you try this trick on 30 men conscript blob, then your opponent can just remove a targeted unit off the table as casuality), thanks to their stratagem "Volley Fire", espechially if you combine it with Forge World's Defensive Searchlight
And lets not speak about how this glorious stratagem works on plasma command squards... this annihilates your friendship with your friends faster then said command squards vaporize your friends' landraider/bainblade/terminators/characters (thx to mordian order)/etc
EricDominus wrote: Did anyone try to use mordian iron guard gunlines? Isnt them quite insane?
Overwatch on a 4+, and ability to produce something like 90+ shots from ten men guardsmen squard (if you try this trick on 30 men conscript blob, then your opponent can just remove a targeted unit off the table as casuality), thanks to their stratagem "Volley Fire", espechially if you combine it with Forge World's Defensive Searchlight
And lets not speak about how this glorious stratagem works on plasma command squards... this annihilates your friendship with your friends faster then said command squards vaporize your friends' landraider/bainblade/terminators/characters (thx to mordian order)/etc
How are you getting 90+? Even with FRFSRF and somehow getting all 40 shots to benefit from Volley Fire you max at 80 from a ten man squad. With the searchlight you're only getting, on average, ~13.2 additional shots from Volley Fire and FRFSRF with an all-lasgun 10-man Infantry squad.
And a bit harder to get a Command Squad into rapid fire range of those units you listed - 4 T3 Sv5+ models aren't the most durable. Can run them up in a Chimera or Taurox, of course, or drop them out of a Valk but now you're adding to their cost for what's already a one-shot unit.
EricDominus wrote: Did anyone try to use mordian iron guard gunlines? Isnt them quite insane?
Overwatch on a 4+, and ability to produce something like 90+ shots from ten men guardsmen squard (if you try this trick on 30 men conscript blob, then your opponent can just remove a targeted unit off the table as casuality), thanks to their stratagem "Volley Fire", espechially if you combine it with Forge World's Defensive Searchlight
And lets not speak about how this glorious stratagem works on plasma command squards... this annihilates your friendship with your friends faster then said command squards vaporize your friends' landraider/bainblade/terminators/characters (thx to mordian order)/etc
How are you getting 90+? Even with FRFSRF and somehow getting all 40 shots to benefit from Volley Fire you max at 80 from a ten man squad. With the searchlight you're only getting, on average, ~13.2 additional shots from Volley Fire and FRFSRF with an all-lasgun 10-man Infantry squad.
And a bit harder to get a Command Squad into rapid fire range of those units you listed - 4 T3 Sv5+ models aren't the most durable. Can run them up in a Chimera or Taurox, of course, or drop them out of a Valk but now you're adding to their cost for what's already a one-shot unit.
I recommend you re-read stratagem's wording. It's not "extra shots", as in Storm Troopers Doctrine, it's literally "shoot at the same target with the same weapon". So, if you shoot 1 lasgun under FRFSRF in rapid fire range and roll 6+ (5+ with searchlight) you shoot your rapid fire 2 lasgun all over again.
And yes, about wording again, it clearly says "EACH TIME YOU ROLL 6+ to hit". So, if you roll, lets say, two 5s and a 6 (what a filthy lucker) been under searchlight's buff, you shoot with the same weapon (with the same weapon profile, for example Rapid Fire 2) 3 more times (e.g. 12 MOAR shots)
EricDominus wrote: Did anyone try to use mordian iron guard gunlines? Isnt them quite insane?
Overwatch on a 4+, and ability to produce something like 90+ shots from ten men guardsmen squard (if you try this trick on 30 men conscript blob, then your opponent can just remove a targeted unit off the table as casuality), thanks to their stratagem "Volley Fire", espechially if you combine it with Forge World's Defensive Searchlight
And lets not speak about how this glorious stratagem works on plasma command squards... this annihilates your friendship with your friends faster then said command squards vaporize your friends' landraider/bainblade/terminators/characters (thx to mordian order)/etc
How are you getting 90+? Even with FRFSRF and somehow getting all 40 shots to benefit from Volley Fire you max at 80 from a ten man squad. With the searchlight you're only getting, on average, ~13.2 additional shots from Volley Fire and FRFSRF with an all-lasgun 10-man Infantry squad.
And a bit harder to get a Command Squad into rapid fire range of those units you listed - 4 T3 Sv5+ models aren't the most durable. Can run them up in a Chimera or Taurox, of course, or drop them out of a Valk but now you're adding to their cost for what's already a one-shot unit.
I recommend you re-read stratagem's wording. It's not "extra shots", as in Storm Troopers Doctrine, it's literally "shoot at the same target with the same weapon". So, if you shoot 1 lasgun under FRFSRF in rapid fire range and roll 6+ (5+ with searchlight) you shoot your rapid fire 2 lasgun all over again.
And yes, about wording again, it clearly says "EACH TIME YOU ROLL 6+ to hit". So, if you roll, lets say, two 5s and a 6 (what a filthy lucker) been under searchlight's buff, you shoot with the same weapon (with the same weapon profile, for example Rapid Fire 2) 3 more times (e.g. 12 MOAR shots)
daedalus wrote:Force stave is 12 points and as far as I know, mandatory. I think you got cheated.
Well, i looked the psyker up in the AM codex in the point list and it says 28 pts. there. I didnt know he had a stave, my fault. The guy i played against is very experienced, i dont think he got it wrong.
the_scotsman wrote:
Primaris psykers are 40pts IIRC. Astropaths are cheaper, but get a single D6 to cast their smites on. So, one of those two things you guys got wrong.
Also, the thing you can do about Smite is:
1) Have a psyker nearby to deny
2) Have another unit be closer to the enemy than the intended target, Smite can only hit the closest target within 18". Rhinos are good for this.
I got it wrong with the 28 pts. Anyway, one psyker can only deny one smite, he had seven psykers. He also smited my razorback, the lascan and RL infantry finished my razorback off.
the_scotsman wrote:
From a different perspective: If you lost a dreadnought in one turn to 280 points worth of overcharged plasma guns, would you be as annoyed? It's a similar weapon to smite with a similar range band and intended target. That's 14 Marines with plasma guns.
Its not the same. First you have to make 14 hit rolls with the marines. Hitting on 3s means you fail 5. Thats 9 hits remaining. From these 9 hits you have to wound on a 3 or 4, depending on whether you overcharged or not. If you didnt overcharge you wound on 4, which means 5 successful wounds, i may save 1, i lose 4 wounds. That doesnt kill a redemptor. Even with overcharge its 6, i save one, lose 10 wounds. Badly hurt, but not dead.
Against plasma you have an armor save, or an invuln save. You dont have any of these against smite.
A psyker only needs to make a single roll with 2 dice, and he needs a 5. The chance of succeeding is pretty high, like 2+ on a D6. The psykers were shielded by chimeras and inf squads, no chance to shoot them. Marines i could have easily shot, no characters.
Anyway, which unit in the game can deal d3 mortal wounds at a 83% success chance, for 40 pts., without any armor or invuln sv against it ?
....Do you regularly not overcharge your plasma guns when they're shooting at a vehicular target with T7? Lol. That's like saying "yeah, but if those plasma guns chose not to shoot my dreadnought, they wouldn't kill it, so they aren't the same because Smites are REQUIRED to shoot me if I'm the closest, they're literally MISTAKE PROOF!" Also, plasma guns fire two shots each, if you'll recall.
28 shots, 19 hits, 12.6666 wounds, 10.5 failed saves, 21 damage on average vs a 13 wound model.
Oh, you know what else you could have probably done? Used Armor of Contempt if you knew your Redemptor was tanking 7 smites. 1CP gives you a 5+ vs all of those mortals. 7*.83*2 on average = 11.6 wounds on average. 7.7 if you wanted to use the stratagem.
....Do you regularly not overcharge your plasma guns when they're shooting at a vehicular target with T7? Lol. That's like saying "yeah, but if those plasma guns chose not to shoot my dreadnought, they wouldn't kill it, so they aren't the same because Smites are REQUIRED to shoot me if I'm the closest, they're literally MISTAKE PROOF!" Also, plasma guns fire two shots each, if you'll recall.
28 shots, 19 hits, 12.6666 wounds, 10.5 failed saves, 21 damage on average vs a 13 wound model.
How do you get 14 SM with plasmaguns for 280 pts ? A 5 model unit of company veterans with plasmaguns and combiplasma on the sarge is already 176 pts.
Oh, you know what else you could have probably done? Used Armor of Contempt if you knew your Redemptor was tanking 7 smites. 1CP gives you a 5+ vs all of those mortals. 7*.83*2 on average = 11.6 wounds on average. 7.7 if you wanted to use the stratagem.
....Do you regularly not overcharge your plasma guns when they're shooting at a vehicular target with T7? Lol. That's like saying "yeah, but if those plasma guns chose not to shoot my dreadnought, they wouldn't kill it, so they aren't the same because Smites are REQUIRED to shoot me if I'm the closest, they're literally MISTAKE PROOF!" Also, plasma guns fire two shots each, if you'll recall.
28 shots, 19 hits, 12.6666 wounds, 10.5 failed saves, 21 damage on average vs a 13 wound model.
How do you get 14 SM with plasmaguns for 280 pts ? A 5 model unit of company veterans with plasmaguns and combiplasma on the sarge is already 176 pts.
Oh, you know what else you could have probably done? Used Armor of Contempt if you knew your Redemptor was tanking 7 smites. 1CP gives you a 5+ vs all of those mortals. 7*.83*2 on average = 11.6 wounds on average. 7.7 if you wanted to use the stratagem.
Thats true, but i didnt think of that.
My bad, didn't realize plasma was 13 for the SMs. And if you want to put them on the 16pt marines, which is more realistic, 280pts gets you about 10. Still an average of 15 wounds, and the comparison is worse for pretty much any actual dedicated anti-armor weapon, many of which have enormously long range.
overall point here:
1) It's not actually that hard to kill a standard T7 3+ vehicle with anything.
2) it is more efficient to kill a standard T7 3+ vehicle with practically anything other than smites, thanks to the fact that smite is only 18" range, denyable, only affects the closest target, and if you try and stack up a ton of them against a Codex army they will typically have a stratagem or similar to help mitigate them. even with no stratagem, the math isn't great for smites vs anything else, with the exception being vs units that rely heavily on invuln saves, who Smite is highly effective at killing.
3) The first time you face something new, it's extremely likely to take you by surprise. You lost the dreadnought to a combination of poor positioning and forgetting your own options. Primaris psyker spam isn't bad, but it relies pretty heavily on the opponent not just keeping out of the 18" threat zone while the infantry screen gets chipped away.
Any time you blame your opponent's army, or the dice, for something bad happening, you absolve yourself of responsibility and you don't learn. There are definitely situations you can't learn from - rats, my opponent rolled all 6s for his lascannons and one shot my superheavy with two devastator squads...I should...not have that happen next time? - but if you fall into that trap of doing it every time you have a loss, you're never going to learn from any loss or bad thing happening.
If you cant pass a roll theres no point in the Commisar now, only lets you reroll it at the cost of a life. The only remaining advantage of the Commisar seems to be rerolling fluky bad morale rolls.
The grav chute insertion change doesn't seem to be a big change at all, at least the way I read it. Basically only a difference of 1", since they changed a <= to a <.
Though it does mean that you definitely have to drop into hover for a safe-drop.
WatcherZero wrote: If you cant pass a roll theres no point in the Commisar now, only lets you reroll it at the cost of a life. The only remaining advantage of the Commisar seems to be rerolling fluky bad morale rolls.
It reads as if it were written quickly. It doesn't even say must or may. I'm just going to use banners in command squads for Catachans and keep an officer with them for +2 leadership. Commissars are essentially pointless for Catachans at this rate. Why spend 31+ points on a Commissar who kills a dude just to let you reroll? Just use Stratagems. We have 2 you can use in the morale phase.
Anybody hyped on Valhallan must be sad about using reinforcement points for Send in the next Wave.
The Valkyrie rules are a little disappointing but I guess it was probably OP to allow the Valk to stay supersonic while dropping dudes 9" away who could still move, shoot, and assault.
WatcherZero wrote: If you cant pass a roll theres no point in the Commisar now, only lets you reroll it at the cost of a life. The only remaining advantage of the Commisar seems to be rerolling fluky bad morale rolls.
Which is a waste of 31 points.for such a small aura. Just buy an extra squad. It costs almost the same.
Here is an insanely absurd psycher spam list. Its 14 astropath and 4 primaris psykers. They all embark on the aquilla landers and are setup in the sky, they later deepstrike ~16" away and kill everything with psychic maelstrom/smite in 18" range. Some probably will survive and continue the psychic maelstrom/smite next turn because the flyers protect them from enemy fire, they are all characters. The rest is just there to fill the empty slots and kill whatever is left of the enemy forces. The list is not optimized, i normally dont play AM. It can probably be made even worse, i guess.
p5freak wrote: Here is an insanely absurd psycher spam list. Its 14 astropath and 4 primaris psykers. They all embark on the aquilla landers and are setup in the sky, they later deepstrike ~16" away and kill everything with psychic maelstrom/smite in 18" range. Some probably will survive and continue the psychic maelstrom/smite next turn because the flyers protect them from enemy fire, they are all characters. The rest is just there to fill the empty slots and kill whatever is left of the enemy forces. The list is not optimized, i normally dont play AM. It can probably be made even worse, i guess.
