Long story short, probably the punisher if you want to kill T4. For big targets (t5+, multiwound) demolisher is actually pretty good. If you get a unit of 5+ multiwound models, with T5+, demolisher is excellent.
Depends what you want really. No good saying punisher is best if the rest of your army is conscripts. I guess an overcharging executioner is decent over all targets, but it could easily kill itself.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:I've run a hundred thousand trials Battle Cannon attacks against common targets, and the long and short of it is not to expect much. It's basically powerless against infantry units, and manages to barely exceed it's 7e numbers against big targets. Unfortunately, since monsters have more wounds now, that's also a net decrease in performance.
Leeman Russes can tie things up in close combat now.
So there's that.
Yeah, there's that. [sarcasm]Woo![/sarcasm]
It's not like Conscripts are a better and cheaper tarpit.
You can get 53 conscripts for the price of a Leman Russ with punisher and hull HB.
Vs S4 WS 3+ AP 0 Damage 1 attacks (basic ork boyz), conscripts will eat about 180 attacks before dying. A Leman Russ will tank 324 attacks before getting wrecked.
Vs S7 WS 3+ AP -1 Damage 2 attacks (nobz with big choppas), conscripts will eat 115 attacks before finally being wiped. A Leman Russ will only take 54 before becoming scrap.
So against non-specialized troops, the Leman Russ is a more efficient tarpit, but against most of the scary things you would like to be tarpitting, conscripts are about twice as efficient.
***Note: Conscripts can lose wounds to morale (but hopefully only one each turn due to some encouragement from a commissar) so fewer attacks than calculated may be necessary to remove them. Also note that conscripts are so much better at attacking in melee than Leman Russes against most targets that it's not even funny.
I almost think that it counts as them tarpitting you if your Russ is locked up, you just lose all damage potential from a reasonably expensive model. I would probably retreat it and fire something at the orks, or charge something else in.
Trickstick wrote: I almost think that it counts as them tarpitting you if your Russ is locked up, you just lose all damage potential from a reasonably expensive model. I would probably retreat it and fire something at the orks, or charge something else in.
As always it depends on the target. Firing your LR weapons into one 30 boyz unit then charging into another fresh one doesn't seem like a bad idea.
Future War Cultist wrote: Oh yeah, I forgot that platoon commanders are elites. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Def not optimal slot for IG from terms of efficiency.
It's not like we're restricted to only 3 Elites tho like the dim and distant past. Now slot management for matched play is a function of managing 3 detachments and the number of CP's desired. It's not like you can realistically run out of slots outside of a very extreme build.
Distant past being 6th ed or earier. But generally HQ and troops being the ones you want spam. Only for sake of brigade you want cheap spammable elite&FA&HS. For other cases anything other than HQ or troop is disadvantage for the unit.
That math article really shows how hard the Exterminator got nerfed. We can also take its numbers and double them to see how good it *could* have been.
I really hope that one of the first updates/balance tweaks they do is "Whoops, we totally forgot the Exterminator was Heavy 4 Twin-Linked. It's Heavy 8 now."
It also confirms some things I expected: the battle cannon is a mediocre all-rounder, the Demolisher can get by on sheer virtue of being S10 against big targets, the Punisher is the best all-rounder, and the Manticore is pretty amazing.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:I've run a hundred thousand trials Battle Cannon attacks against common targets, and the long and short of it is not to expect much. It's basically powerless against infantry units, and manages to barely exceed it's 7e numbers against big targets. Unfortunately, since monsters have more wounds now, that's also a net decrease in performance.
Leeman Russes can tie things up in close combat now.
So there's that.
Yeah, there's that. [sarcasm]Woo![/sarcasm]
It's not like Conscripts are a better and cheaper tarpit.
So, no matter the points, what is the best turret against the most targets?
I'm not a fan of using the Average Wound Count. It can be misleading.
This chart shows the likelyhood of getting a given number of wounds against a T7 Sv3+ target. 2500 trials. It's worth mention that, while the Demolisher Cannon targeting units of 5+ models is included, it's unlikely T7 models with a bunch of wounds will be coming in large units.
This chart shows the likelyhood of inflicting at least a given number of wounds against a T7 Sv3+ target. 2500 trials.
This chart shows the number of individual models dealt wounds to, still T7 Sv3+.
This chart shows the number of trials that dealt wounds to at least X individual models, still T7 Sv3+.
Marines:
So here's the long and short of it:
Against infantry, the Punisher is really the only option.
Against big things, you've got your eye equally on the Annihilator, Demolisher, and, to a lesser extent, the Vanquisher.
Overall, performance in general is pretty uninspiring.
You can get 53 conscripts for the price of a Leman Russ with punisher and hull HB.
Vs S4 WS 3+ AP 0 Damage 1 attacks (basic ork boyz), conscripts will eat about 180 attacks before dying. A Leman Russ will tank 324 attacks before getting wrecked.
Vs S7 WS 3+ AP -1 Damage 2 attacks (nobz with big choppas), conscripts will eat 115 attacks before finally being wiped. A Leman Russ will only take 54 before becoming scrap.
So against non-specialized troops, the Leman Russ is a more efficient tarpit, but against most of the scary things you would like to be tarpitting, conscripts are about twice as efficient.
***Note: Conscripts can lose wounds to morale (but hopefully only one each turn due to some encouragement from a commissar) so fewer attacks than calculated may be necessary to remove them. Also note that conscripts are so much better at attacking in melee than Leman Russes against most targets that it's not even funny.
Okay, it is a little funny...
It's also worth mention that the 180 average number of attacks to clear the conscript blob is almost more attacks than a squad of ork can get for the game. Once you reach a certain survivability threshold, there's not much point in being more survivable.
Kommissar Kel wrote: I am, in fact, rather surprised that there even are 2 different commanders.
I would also have found this to be acceptable. In fact, I think this is probably how I'm going to have to fluff it until they rearrange the command structure: all commanders use the company commander statline, whatever their rank.
Which is not at all unreasonable. It makes no real sense for a Colonel to always be a better fighter than a plucky Lieutenant, unless we are talking about a grizzled veteran regiment.
Remember, this is the Imperium, where bayonet charges agaisnt horrific super-science weapons of destruction is not that far down on a list of things to try. In the Guard, Company Commander is still a pretty front-line unit. It's possible that when a regiment was formed, not all company commanders were hardcases, but by about 48 hours of light combat (40k light), all the mid-level officers that weren't well above average are just killed off. Those slots get rapidly filled by badasses who don't die all that often, which may be the most important skill of a Company Commander in the imperium. Regimental command can't waste all it's time learning new names as attrition wears away it's command structure.
It's also worth mention that the 180 average number of attacks to clear the conscript blob is almost more attacks than a squad of ork can get for the game. Once you reach a certain survivability threshold, there's not much point in being more survivable.
A squad of 30 boys have 4 attacks each (2 base +1 for choppa +1 for green tide), and so put out 120 attacks in close combat. Even assuming some casualties are taken beforehand, if they make it into combat while still above 20, they will take out a conscript blob in two rounds of combat. So by their next turn, they will have probably finished up the last of the conscripts and be ready to move on to another target.
It's also worth mention that the 180 average number of attacks to clear the conscript blob is almost more attacks than a squad of ork can get for the game. Once you reach a certain survivability threshold, there's not much point in being more survivable.
A squad of 30 boys have 4 attacks each (2 base +1 for choppa +1 for green tide), and so put out 120 attacks in close combat. Even assuming some casualties are taken beforehand, if they make it into combat while still above 20, they will take out a conscript blob in two rounds of combat. So by their next turn, they will have probably finished up the last of the conscripts and be ready to move on to another target.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:I've run a hundred thousand trials Battle Cannon attacks against common targets, and the long and short of it is not to expect much. It's basically powerless against infantry units, and manages to barely exceed it's 7e numbers against big targets. Unfortunately, since monsters have more wounds now, that's also a net decrease in performance.
Leeman Russes can tie things up in close combat now.
So there's that.
Yeah, there's that. [sarcasm]Woo![/sarcasm]
It's not like Conscripts are a better and cheaper tarpit.
You can get 53 conscripts for the price of a Leman Russ with punisher and hull HB.
Vs S4 WS 3+ AP 0 Damage 1 attacks (basic ork boyz), conscripts will eat about 180 attacks before dying. A Leman Russ will tank 324 attacks before getting wrecked.
Vs S7 WS 3+ AP -1 Damage 2 attacks (nobz with big choppas), conscripts will eat 115 attacks before finally being wiped. A Leman Russ will only take 54 before becoming scrap.
So against non-specialized troops, the Leman Russ is a more efficient tarpit, but against most of the scary things you would like to be tarpitting, conscripts are about twice as efficient.
***Note: Conscripts can lose wounds to morale (but hopefully only one each turn due to some encouragement from a commissar) so fewer attacks than calculated may be necessary to remove them. Also note that conscripts are so much better at attacking in melee than Leman Russes against most targets that it's not even funny.
Okay, it is a little funny...
Also keep in mind that with orders conscripts can disengage, use "Get Back in the Fight" and still fire that turn. Leman Russes don't have that kind of flexibility.
Conscripts are pretty much our premier screening unit, given that in your turn they're either already dead or can disengage and still fire as normal. Either way they're so cheap that it doesn't really matter.
It's also worth mention that the 180 average number of attacks to clear the conscript blob is almost more attacks than a squad of ork can get for the game. Once you reach a certain survivability threshold, there's not much point in being more survivable.
A squad of 30 boys have 4 attacks each (2 base +1 for choppa +1 for green tide), and so put out 120 attacks in close combat. Even assuming some casualties are taken beforehand, if they make it into combat while still above 20, they will take out a conscript blob in two rounds of combat. So by their next turn, they will have probably finished up the last of the conscripts and be ready to move on to another target.
And this is why conscripts are not the be all and end all some seem to be making them out to be. With how strong assault is now, unsupported conscripts, even en mass, are going to be swept away. Imagine the destruction if the Commissar is killed (not hard to do). The vehicles will have to protect the infantry I say. Heavy Flamers all day.
Also keep in mind that with orders conscripts can disengage, use "Get Back in the Fight" and still fire that turn. Leman Russes don't have that kind of flexibility.
Conscripts are pretty much our premier screening unit, given that in your turn they're either already dead or can disengage and still fire as normal. Either way they're so cheap that it doesn't really matter.
I think Ratlings may actually be better, considering how their special deployment allows them to extend the "no deepstrike zone" well beyond your own deployment. Couple this with the fact that they can fall back after over watch (totally amazing) and I think you have a very good screening/skirmishing unit.
What's everyone thinking about our Astropath, Primaris, or Wyrdvane options? I'm thinking the mortal wounds could be useful against vehicles and tougher models that get close ie: Riptides and such.
Colonel Cross wrote: What's everyone thinking about our Astropath, Primaris, or Wyrdvane options? I'm thinking the mortal wounds could be useful against vehicles and tougher models that get close ie: Riptides and such.
I like the Primaris. He is the best caster out of the lot of them, with decent powers. As he can choose his power, he can tailor which one he takes against the opponent. Enemy vulnerable to moral? Terrifying Visions. Durable melee? Take the Gaze of the Emperor, which can punish grouped up enemies with mortal wounds. Against shooting armies, take Psychic Barrier. The Primaris is also immune to perils if near a Commissar. Well, I say immune, at least he won't hurt anybody else...
I don't get Wyrdvanes. I guess they could be good but I don't see it.
The Astropath is a cheap unit you buy for removing cover saves. His powers only work on a 5+, so they are really just a bonus. Still, he is only 15 points if you take a laspistol. Pretty cheap.
Colonel Cross wrote: What's everyone thinking about our Astropath, Primaris, or Wyrdvane options? I'm thinking the mortal wounds could be useful against vehicles and tougher models that get close ie: Riptides and such.
Well first of all I'm not that fuzzed about the powers they bring:
'Terrifying Vision' lowers the LD of a unit by 2. I still find leadership modifiers/Battleshock not that impactful until characters that buff their surrounding troops are sniped. Could work well if you have your own snipers though.
'Gaze of the Emperor' is hilariously the only ability in the game (that I know of) that still forces an enemy to spread his models out, 7th ed style. However, since both the range of the beam (2D6, average of 7"...) and the wound chance (4+) is random, it's still kinda meh unless there is a massive blob of Boyz/Gaunts in your grill. Or maybe something smaller but bigger, like deep-struck Terminators since you do Mortal Wounds.
'Psychic Barrier' Gives ONE unit +1 to their save. This is kind of the problem with single unit buffs and the IG; our units simply aren't worth it. Unless it is a decked out squad of Veterans/Scion, A fully upgraded Russ (preferably Pask) or a Superheavy, it doesn't mean all that much. Remember that squadrons of vehicles will still count as only a single model now.
And even then, I'd rather have an offensive buff than a defensive one. Give me more accurate shooting, I don't care if my men die.
Now onto the Psykers themselves:
Primaris Psyker: 40 points (28 for base model, 12 for the Force Staff which cannot be changed)
While way better in melee than the other two options, he is still sub-optimal for the job. You want a melee character, look to the Lord Commissar.
Speaking of Commissars, the Primaris has one boon over the others: if he dies from Perils within 6" of any Commissar, he is simply executed and doesn't explode, doing D3 mortal wounds to nearby guardsmen/characters.
But then again, if you keep your characters out of his explosion range, all you will lose is probably 4 guardsmen. No big deal.
Wyrdvane Psykers:
24 points for a minimum squad of 3 models, 8 points per model. Maximum of 9 in one squad.
These guys really do not seem worth it. This is primarily due to their 'Choir of Minds' ability.
The Choir of Minds means that they can only manifest power AND deny enemy powers on 1D6, but add +1 to the result for 3 or more models in the squad and +2 for 6 or more models.
Ok so.... for 48 points, I can manifest or deny one power on 1D6+2? And as soon as one model dies it goes down to 1D6+1? No thanks....
The only boon I can think of is that you can spread the models out, giving you a larger area from which you can manifest/deny powers. But again, good luck doing that with 1D6 + 1-2.
Psyker: 15 points. You can pay 6 more points to give him a staff, but at WS 5+, please don't.
T3, 6+ save and 3 wounds do make him fairly fragile, but he is a character so he should be somewhat save.
Now he comes with two abilities; Astral Divination and Telepathic Assault.
Telepathic Assault is unfortunately a negative ability; it let's him manifest Smite only on 1D6 instead of 2D6. Less chance for Perils I suppose...
However, this is ONLY for Smite, not for any other powers or for denying. Making it nowhere near as bad as the Wyrdvane's have.
Now here comes the good stuff:
Astral Divination let's you select one enemy unit at 18" from the Psyker at the start of the shooting phase. This unit will no longer get any bonuses to it's save from cover, when being shot by any IG unit within 6" of the Psyker.
Aaah, so this is where 'Fire on my Target' went! With cover now being beneficial to practically every unit in the game, this will really increase your firepower to units in cover. I'm sure some of you have heard of Scouts with Camo-cloaks now having a 2+ save in cover? Nah, not happenin' when my Psyker's about mate The only downside is it's relatively short range, meaning that you will most likely use it when your Psyker is foot-slogging next to your Conscript/Guardsmen line and you want to shoot at a unit in cover.
Or you can drive shooty vehicle close to your Psyker and let it benefit from 'ignores cover'.
I'm sure there are loads more applications for it!
In short, only the Psyker seems worth it to me. Extremely cheap for a deny the witch-bubble, throw some spells here and there (though likely not Smite) and really help with units in cover.
Ey guys! Whats your oppinion in the bassilisk? I'm thinkering the idea of adding one as range support for my Genestealers, and I love the model, but I'm the worst at "mathhammering" how good a unit is
Spoiler:
If they are "good enough" you'll make a happy Bassilisk!
Wyrdvanes would have been much better if you also got a bonus for having nearby psykers. So your Primaris, or another squad of Wyrdvanes, could support each other.
As is, they're barely capable of casting Smite, much less doing much denying.
Galas wrote: Ey guys! Whats your oppinion in the bassilisk? I'm thinkering the idea of adding one as range support for my Genestealers, and I love the model, but I'm the worst at "mathhammering" how good a unit is
Spoiler:
If they are "good enough" you'll make a happy Bassilisk!
The Basilisk is good for consistently putting wounds on large targets. Its 2d6 drop low mechanic means it'll be putting out 3 or more "shots" about 90% of the time, and will almost never get a 1. Which means you're pretty much always getting at least one hit. At 108 points with the heavy bolter, it's affordable for what it does. Use it to punch holes in things that are more expensive than it. If you're going to have it out where it can use its heavy bolter, you can also stick a heavy stubber on there for 4 points.
The Manticore is better per model because it rolls a full 2d6, which gives you a minimum of 2 and an average of 7. Sure, it's empty on the fifth turn, but by then the game is basically over. It's 133 points with its heavy bolter and can't form squadrons though, so in a low-points game you might find the Basilisk easier to afford, and in a high-points game you may find that a squadron of three Basilisks makes better use of a slot. It has the same job as the Basilisk: put holes in things that are more expensive than it.
Thanks Ross! The Manticore is a cool model too... but yeah. As my ally Imperial Guard Detachment is small, the capability of a basilisk to put more in a slot is a big deal to me!
Hmm. The rules say ( for a normal tank commander) that they can not give orders to a character. But Pask can. So Pask can give orders to other tank commanders. But not to himself.
"...Pask can issue orders to other Cadian Leman Russ Characters."
Important word is other, which would not include himself. He can only order normal Russes and Tank Commanders.
Edit: Arg, I've confused myself by investigating it now. Pask doesn't actually have the restriction that stops Tank Commanders from giving orders to characters. I'm going to kick this over to YMDC, will post link.
"...Pask can issue orders to other Cadian Leman Russ Characters."
Important word is other, which would not include himself. He can only order normal Russes and Tank Commanders.
Edit: Arg, I've confused myself by investigating it now. Pask doesn't actually have the restriction that stops Tank Commanders from giving orders to characters. I'm going to kick this over to YMDC, will post link.
yupp. Day one FAQ please hehe ! It says you can pick a Leman Russ within ( to give an order ) 6'' of Pask. As he has no character restriction. > Can give himself an order ?
I am actually thinking that he can order himself now. He does not have the character restriction in the first place, so the other wording doesn't even matter.
I am actually thinking that he can order himself now. He does not have the character restriction in the first place, so the other wording doesn't even matter.
It would make sense that he could give orders to his own tank, he isn't driving, loading, or shooting. He would be ordering his crew.
Can the regular Tank Commander give orders to his own tank?
****ETA, no for some reason he cannot because of the CHARACTER keyword. GW works in mysterious ways.
Thanks for the thoughts of psykers. I like the ignore cover and possibly giving a unit of 50 conscripts +1 to their armor saves ... might have to play test this.
I'm currently building 6 more mortar teams out of left over guys and some extra bases. Being able to hide them more easily than a Wyvern and issue orders to reroll 1s to hit with a platoon commander in the back field just makes them seem fun. Anybody play test a Wyvern yet to be able to speak about their comparison from 7th to 8th?
I played a 2k game with a company of 3 baneblades, 2 infantry squads, one tempestus scion squad, lord commissar, and company commander in a Battalion detachment. I had 9 Command Points and could deploy first quite easily, thereby acquiring first turn. Each baneblade had only 2 sponsons (instead of the max 4) and was the classic configuration, with heavy bolters instead of heavy flamers. The enemy was 2000 pts Blood Angels, with 2 razorbacks, a rhino, 2 Baal predators, 4 lascannon devastators, a Storm Raven, a dreadnought, and a bunch of squads, and Mephiston.
The baneblades were phenomenal. Advancing 2 of them to the front was easy and they destroyed several enemy units between them. The enemy tried to charge them, and one overwatch from all the guns on one of the Baneblades vaporized a Dreadnought (preventing it from getting within 1") and then vaporized Mephiston (because no enemy unit was within 1" when the Baneblade was charged, it could overwatch again). So the same tank destroyed a dreadnought and Mephiston in the enemy's own charge phase.
When the Baneblades /were/ locked in combat, it only helped me and not the enemy. The Baneblades were able to fire to essentially full effectiveness, necessarily remaining stationary and firing all their guns at a variety of targets, with only the Heavy Bolters hitting the unit it was stuck in with. But then came the 9 attacks with -2 rend and d3 damage - the Baneblade was routinely winning combat while being completely untouchable by enemy shooting.
What's more, when the enemy Fell Back, they could shoot the baneblade (with the unit that did not fall back), but then the Baneblade could simply charge them again (or lock another unit up with Consolidate and make itself unable to be shot again) and get 9 more attacks at -2 rend and d3 damage, hitting first.
The Baneblade's ability to fire while an enemy unit is within 1", even at other targets, essentially makes it immune to enemy shooting at times unless the enemy wishes to continue to fall back before its advance.
I played a 2k game with a company of 3 baneblades, 2 infantry squads, one tempestus scion squad, lord commissar, and company commander in a Battalion detachment. I had 9 Command Points and could deploy first quite easily, thereby acquiring first turn. Each baneblade had only 2 sponsons (instead of the max 4) and was the classic configuration, with heavy bolters instead of heavy flamers. The enemy was 2000 pts Blood Angels, with 2 razorbacks, a rhino, 2 Baal predators, 4 lascannon devastators, a Storm Raven, a dreadnought, and a bunch of squads, and Mephiston.
The baneblades were phenomenal. Advancing 2 of them to the front was easy and they destroyed several enemy units between them. The enemy tried to charge them, and one overwatch from all the guns on one of the Baneblades vaporized a Dreadnought (preventing it from getting within 1") and then vaporized Mephiston (because no enemy unit was within 1" when the Baneblade was charged, it could overwatch again). So the same tank destroyed a dreadnought and Mephiston in the enemy's own charge phase.
When the Baneblades /were/ locked in combat, it only helped me and not the enemy. The Baneblades were able to fire to essentially full effectiveness, necessarily remaining stationary and firing all their guns at a variety of targets, with only the Heavy Bolters hitting the unit it was stuck in with. But then came the 9 attacks with -2 rend and d3 damage - the Baneblade was routinely winning combat while being completely untouchable by enemy shooting.
What's more, when the enemy Fell Back, they could shoot the baneblade (with the unit that did not fall back), but then the Baneblade could simply charge them again (or lock another unit up with Consolidate and make itself unable to be shot again) and get 9 more attacks at -2 rend and d3 damage, hitting first.
The Baneblade's ability to fire while an enemy unit is within 1", even at other targets, essentially makes it immune to enemy shooting at times unless the enemy wishes to continue to fall back before its advance.
This is a great point. I referenced this in the tactics thread for IG already, so feel free to expand on your experience over there.
Have you considered the other chassis? The Hellhammer seems pretty good for denying cover saves in exchange for some range over the base Baneblade. Would you upgrade your heavy bolters to flamers in the future?
I have a soft spot for the Shadowsword, and the targets seem pretty awesome for dealing with anything large with that sweet cannon.
I have a company of Hellhammers and just used them in a second game.
Waaay worse than the baneblade - does essentially the same thing. With the new wound table, Str 9 vs Str 10 is essentially the same, and the 16% change in saves isn't worth 20 points more and 1/2 the range. Part of the neat thing about baneblades was I could counter-charge a unit in my deployment zone and still fire the main gun at the enemy's DZ.
I would probably go with heavy flamers almost certainly, but won't. I like the 'classic' loadout and Heavy Flamers are almost unnecessary, though in a truly competitive setting it's certainly better than the bolters for the secondary armament.
The Shadowsword is almost too specialized; if the enemy brings horde IG the tanks with far more numerous secondary weapons (e.g. baneblades) are considerably better, for example.
I've mentioned the baneblade situation before. I definitely think that the best way to use a baneblade in 8th is to load it up with heavy flamer sponsons, and charge it straight into the biggest blob of units you can find. The eight heavy flamers and nine melee attacks will shred whatever it's in melee with, the melee will protect it from enemy shooting, and its own guns can continue to fire with no penalties whatsoever.
The Baneblade wants to be in melee as much as possible now. There's no downside to it!
ross-128 wrote: I've mentioned the baneblade situation before. I definitely think that the best way to use a baneblade in 8th is to load it up with heavy flamer sponsons, and charge it straight into the biggest blob of units you can find. The eight heavy flamers and nine melee attacks will shred whatever it's in melee with, the melee will protect it from enemy shooting, and its own guns can continue to fire with no penalties whatsoever.
The Baneblade wants to be in melee as much as possible now. There's no downside to it!
That's absolutely hilarious. It makes sense, though.
IronJack wrote: Why are people complaining that platoon Commanders are elites and not HQ? In 7th edition platoon commanders were TROOPS, so this is actually a promotion.
Platoon commanders in my mind make more sense as HQ's. Currently if I want to fill 2 Bridage Detachments in a 2000pt game I will never use a platoon commander. I'll take company commander every time to fulfill the HQ detachment requirements. Elite slots are easily filled using commissar's etc. 8th edition is all about command points. You want to be taking units that fill slots to generate as much command points as possible. We can easily get 21+ command points in a 2000 pt game.
If a Baneblade wants the road, you get out of the way or you get pancaked.
It's a massive gun platform. It should be sitting back and shooting, not trying to chase down random infantry and run them over.
The goal of every tank commander is to drive forward with cannons blazing and feel their treads grind the bones of their enemies.
That isn't my opinion, it was the one expressed by the tank commander teacher in Doom of Mymeara. Rolling forward crushing your enemies as the cannon fires isn't what you should do, it is what you HAVE to do s an imperial commander. Nothing less will keep the commissar from eliminating you for cowardice.
If a Baneblade wants the road, you get out of the way or you get pancaked.
It's a massive gun platform. It should be sitting back and shooting, not trying to chase down random infantry and run them over.
The goal of every tank commander is to drive forward with cannons blazing and feel their treads grind the bones of their enemies.
That isn't my opinion, it was the one expressed by the tank commander teacher in Doom of Mymeara. Rolling forward crushing your enemies as the cannon fires isn't what you should do, it is what you HAVE to do s an imperial commander. Nothing less will keep the commissar from eliminating you for cowardice.
That's stupid but makes sense due to it being 40k. Though are vehicles can barely do that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fe40k wrote: It seems like IG are the real winners this edition.
Going to make for an interesting meta; IG seem to have lots of ways they can go now - armor heavy, infantry heavy, and everything in between.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: It's stupid, but better than the alternative: it becomes perma-stuck by a single guardsman touching it.
Here's a better alternative: dump the idiotic 8th edition vehicle rules, and have vehicles ignore engaged models for movement/shooting purposes but not be able to hit back. The Baneblade can still ignore tarpit threats as it should, but there's no incentive to rush it forward and get into melee ASAP.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: It's stupid, but better than the alternative: it becomes perma-stuck by a single guardsman touching it.
Here's a better alternative: dump the idiotic 8th edition vehicle rules, and have vehicles ignore engaged models for movement/shooting purposes but not be able to hit back. The Baneblade can still ignore tarpit threats as it should, but there's no incentive to rush it forward and get into melee ASAP.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I'd rather all the MC's became vehicles and we did away thing things having more than 3 wounds.
Revise the VDT and make Carnifexes, Riptides, and Wraithknights all tanks, do away with Hull Points, and I think we'd be set.
I mean, I am definitely going to be using my Baneblades as linebreakers now. They are better at it than Knights if you include the fact that their firepower is unhindered in combat. At least a Knight has to expose itself to enemy shooting between charges.
If a Baneblade wants the road, you get out of the way or you get pancaked.
It's a massive gun platform. It should be sitting back and shooting, not trying to chase down random infantry and run them over.
It's stupid, but better than the alternative: it becomes perma-stuck by a single guardsman touching it.
In 7th ed it neither was uber CC monster that wanted to be in CC nor locked by single guardsmen. So there is actually possible to be in the middle ground.
I played a 2k game with a company of 3 baneblades, 2 infantry squads, one tempestus scion squad, lord commissar, and company commander in a Battalion detachment. I had 9 Command Points and could deploy first quite easily, thereby acquiring first turn. Each baneblade had only 2 sponsons (instead of the max 4) and was the classic configuration, with heavy bolters instead of heavy flamers. The enemy was 2000 pts Blood Angels, with 2 razorbacks, a rhino, 2 Baal predators, 4 lascannon devastators, a Storm Raven, a dreadnought, and a bunch of squads, and Mephiston.
The baneblades were phenomenal. Advancing 2 of them to the front was easy and they destroyed several enemy units between them. The enemy tried to charge them, and one overwatch from all the guns on one of the Baneblades vaporized a Dreadnought (preventing it from getting within 1") and then vaporized Mephiston (because no enemy unit was within 1" when the Baneblade was charged, it could overwatch again). So the same tank destroyed a dreadnought and Mephiston in the enemy's own charge phase.
When the Baneblades /were/ locked in combat, it only helped me and not the enemy. The Baneblades were able to fire to essentially full effectiveness, necessarily remaining stationary and firing all their guns at a variety of targets, with only the Heavy Bolters hitting the unit it was stuck in with. But then came the 9 attacks with -2 rend and d3 damage - the Baneblade was routinely winning combat while being completely untouchable by enemy shooting.
What's more, when the enemy Fell Back, they could shoot the baneblade (with the unit that did not fall back), but then the Baneblade could simply charge them again (or lock another unit up with Consolidate and make itself unable to be shot again) and get 9 more attacks at -2 rend and d3 damage, hitting first.
The Baneblade's ability to fire while an enemy unit is within 1", even at other targets, essentially makes it immune to enemy shooting at times unless the enemy wishes to continue to fall back before its advance.
Triple Baneblades... honestly not sure how you'd stop that list. That's so much anti-infantry firepower from all the bolters/flamers; and then the all of the main/demolisher cannons obliterate opposing heavy tanks... and then 26 wounds, 8T, 3+ save on top of it...
Would be rough for a balanced list to really fight. Making me consider picking up a couple tanks and taking it to a tournament (should be a ~$400 list, not bad all considered).
If a Baneblade wants the road, you get out of the way or you get pancaked.
It's a massive gun platform. It should be sitting back and shooting, not trying to chase down random infantry and run them over.
The goal of every tank commander is to drive forward with cannons blazing and feel their treads grind the bones of their enemies.
That isn't my opinion, it was the one expressed by the tank commander teacher in Doom of Mymeara. Rolling forward crushing your enemies as the cannon fires isn't what you should do, it is what you HAVE to do s an imperial commander. Nothing less will keep the commissar from eliminating you for cowardice.
Another fan of the Doom of Mymeara!
I especially liked that said teacher failed all of his students on that basis.
They still seem way overpriced for what you are getting, but they are certainly better then they used to be. What that being said, I feel like one of the strengts they had before was to pair them with a priest, which you cannot do any longer.
Why would you not be able to use priests with them? They count as Astra Militarum Infantry, don't they?
They are. Priests work. On the charge you can get 5 attacks per guy.
The main reason i took priests was for getting fearless bullgryns, which is what I ment. Priests does not make units fearless anymore, and bullgryns have a terrible LD.
FunJohn wrote: The main reason i took priests was for getting fearless bullgryns, which is what I ment. Priests does not make units fearless anymore, and bullgryns have a terrible LD.
Probably better to just buy an extra Bullgryn rather than the Priest TBH
FunJohn wrote: The main reason i took priests was for getting fearless bullgryns, which is what I ment. Priests does not make units fearless anymore, and bullgryns have a terrible LD.
Probably better to just buy an extra Bullgryn rather than the Priest TBH
Yeah, and the Zealot rule now only applies to the Priest.
Have we discussed Primaris Psykers Vs Astropaths? Unless you really like Smite, I see no reason to pay for the Psyker over the Astopath who can still cast Psycic Barrier and deny with 2d6.
The Primaris Psyker is a HQ which may be more helpful in filling out FoC requirements, which is a thing. It can chip in in melee reasonably (for IG anyway) as well. 1 Psyker and 2 Astropaths for 70 points seems like a solid addition to any list
I was going to question why a Primarus Pysker is a HQ choice when Platoon Commanders are only elites but then I remembered that they're a separate faction now.
And I'm disappointed by how poor Wyrdvanes seem to be. What they could have done is allow +1 to casting and denying rolls for every model over 5 in the unit. So a full sized unit of ten would cast on D6+5. Phrase it like this:
Choir Of Minds: This unit can only attempt to cast or deny powers on 1d6. However, for every model in the unit, you may add +1 to the result up to a maximum of +5.
Does that make sense? Is that fair? I'd rather have an expensive but useful unit rather than a cheap but useless one.
They definitely need something. As it stands there is really no reason to take them over the Primaris or the Astropath, both of which have their niche and are solid additions.
The other issue with them is that they can't hide like a character can either, and I'm pretty sure they can't cast out of a transport. Very soft, oddly ineffective, and competes against two models doing the same thing but better.
I'm putting together a small Guard army for the new edition, and given how well the Baneblade does up close I am going back and forth on how to build mine now.
So far I have:
* 6x (5man special weapons) Scion squads, a Scion command squad and Tempestor Prime. Taurox Prime.
*Company Command Squad and Commander
2x Chimera (HF)
6x Heavy Weapons Squad (12 mortars, 6 heavy bolters)
*2x LRBT w/ plasma sponsons
*3-4x Commissars/ Lord Commissars
*1xRough Riders (10)
5-6x Special Weapons Teams (Demo, Flamer, GL)
*Aegis Defense Line
*= assembled
I was planning on parking the cheap Heavy Weapons Teams and GL guys behind the Aegis line with the CCS and a commissar or two.
The Demo and Flamer guys ride in the Chimeras.
The LRBTs guard the flanks of the gunline and protect against heavy deep strikers.
The Scions deep strike to attack or seize objectives.
Fast attack slots will be initially fillled from Ultramarines or AdMech forces.
I was planning on building a Shadowsword from the Baneblade kit, with 4 lascannons and heavy bolters on the sponsons. It could sit back and shoot or it can charge into melee if necessary.
Any opinions on Shadowsword vs other variants for this role?
The main reason i took priests was for getting fearless bullgryns, which is what I ment. Priests does not make units fearless anymore, and bullgryns have a terrible LD.
Terrible LD? Equal to tactical squads and commisars ensure you lose max 1.
verticalgain wrote: I'm putting together a small Guard army for the new edition, and given how well the Baneblade does up close I am going back and forth on how to build mine now.
So far I have:
* 6x (5man special weapons) Scion squads, a Scion command squad and Tempestor Prime. Taurox Prime.
*Company Command Squad and Commander
2x Chimera (HF)
6x Heavy Weapons Squad (12 mortars, 6 heavy bolters)
*2x LRBT w/ plasma sponsons
*3-4x Commissars/ Lord Commissars
*1xRough Riders (10)
5-6x Special Weapons Teams (Demo, Flamer, GL)
*Aegis Defense Line
*= assembled
I was planning on parking the cheap Heavy Weapons Teams and GL guys behind the Aegis line with the CCS and a commissar or two.
The Demo and Flamer guys ride in the Chimeras.
The LRBTs guard the flanks of the gunline and protect against heavy deep strikers.
The Scions deep strike to attack or seize objectives.
Fast attack slots will be initially fillled from Ultramarines or AdMech forces.
I was planning on building a Shadowsword from the Baneblade kit, with 4 lascannons and heavy bolters on the sponsons. It could sit back and shoot or it can charge into melee if necessary.
Any opinions on Shadowsword vs other variants for this role?
I prefer the traditional Baneblade, if you are piling on secondaries. Because:
Those secondaries are all more dice you can roll, and even the primary is more dice than the Shadowsword. If you are advancing it into melee (which you absolutely should as that is where the Baneblade is most comfortable), then having more gak to throw at the wall and have some stick will be important.
Heavy Flamers are also very important for this role and I would swap them for heavy bolters in a heartbeat.... but I like the classic look too much and don't care too much about competitiveness so I won't.
I am really tempted by the flamer hellhammer but it is 704 points! That is a fair bit. I would love to use the Stormsword if it had rules similar to 7th, where it was simply a 10" hellhammer cannon. I would imagine that would be a 3d6 blast, but I guess they didn't want to go crazy on the size of blasts because it would destroy single targets.
Those secondaries are all more dice you can roll, and even the primary is more dice than the Shadowsword. If you are advancing it into melee (which you absolutely should as that is where the Baneblade is most comfortable), then having more gak to throw at the wall and have some stick will be important.
Heavy Flamers are also very important for this role and I would swap them for heavy bolters in a heartbeat.... but I like the classic look too much and don't care too much about competitiveness so I won't.
Yeah I picked up the kit for the extra two turrets so it's getting 4 lascannons regardless.
With the rules for Adamantium Tracks it has me leaning towards the regular Baneblade over the Shadowsword now simply due to volume of fire. The tank is now a useful steamroller and if it's going in close anyway it negates the range issues on the demolisher cannon.
I keep going back and forth on heavy flamers vs heavy bolters. I like the idea of auto hitting, but 8 vs 36" of range is a big difference. For example, if I know my tracks are going to smash the orcs assaulting it, I could use the heavy bolters to shoot something else farther away.
What do people think of the Stormlord and hiding most of your Heavy weapon Squads inside it? Worth it or too risky? Can commanders still give orders to units inside?
Are defense lines worth it for a conscript shield? With the cover and an Astropath buffing they have 3+ armor vs shooting and 4+ in melee. Seems solid for not too much investment.
Ratlings vs Vindicares. Vindicares seem to have more character killing power while ratlings have more shots and are able to screen your frontline better. Thoughts?
Khadorstompy wrote: What do people think of the Stormlord and hiding most of your Heavy weapon Squads inside it? Worth it or too risky? Can commanders still give orders to units inside?
Are defense lines worth it for a conscript shield? With the cover and an Astropath buffing they have 3+ armor vs shooting and 4+ in melee. Seems solid for not too much investment.
Ratlings vs Vindicares. Vindicares seem to have more character killing power while ratlings have more shots and are able to screen your frontline better. Thoughts?
I also considered stuffing heavy or special weapons into a Stormlord but I don't think they are allowed to shoot out when it is in close combat?
Khadorstompy wrote: What do people think of the Stormlord and hiding most of your Heavy weapon Squads inside it? Worth it or too risky? Can commanders still give orders to units inside?
Are defense lines worth it for a conscript shield? With the cover and an Astropath buffing they have 3+ armor vs shooting and 4+ in melee. Seems solid for not too much investment.
Ratlings vs Vindicares. Vindicares seem to have more character killing power while ratlings have more shots and are able to screen your frontline better. Thoughts?
Loading up HWS into a swordlord is fun & relatively effective, but you'll never win games doing it. In 7th orders could not be issued to units embarked in a transport. I would be surprised if they could in 8th. I own a Stormlord & the few times I have fielded it has done very well. That said, I will rarely ever get to use it this edition. For the cost of any of the baneblade variants, you can nearly field an entire brigade detachment.
Haven't analyzed ADL well enough to speak to that yet.
I'm leaning towards ratlings. For the cost of 1 vindicare you can field 1.5 squads of ratlings. Mortal wounds on 6's. Can shoot & move. You can also issue them orders like take aim, rerolling 1's. Meaning they basically have a 2+ to hit. Can't issue orders to Vindicare.
I think there is an argument for sticking with heavy bolters on the baneblade; besides being cheaper, and having more range, they actually don't discourage enemy charges like the flamers do. If the baneblade is better being stuck in combat, then it may be beneficial not to discourage, or evaporate, enemy charges (which 8 heavy flamers totally will).
Khadorstompy wrote: What do people think of the Stormlord and hiding most of your Heavy weapon Squads inside it? Worth it or too risky? Can commanders still give orders to units inside?
Are defense lines worth it for a conscript shield? With the cover and an Astropath buffing they have 3+ armor vs shooting and 4+ in melee. Seems solid for not too much investment.
Ratlings vs Vindicares. Vindicares seem to have more character killing power while ratlings have more shots and are able to screen your frontline better. Thoughts?
I also considered stuffing heavy or special weapons into a Stormlord but I don't think they are allowed to shoot out when it is in close combat?
Hmm this is interesting. Upon reading carefully the Transport section it mentions that embarked units can't do anything or be effected in any way while embarked unless specifically stated. In addition the Stormlord can fire its weapons in close combat. I could see this being ruled many different ways. (Downside is there is certainly no way that you can issue orders to your units in the tank.)
Otto von Bludd wrote: I think there is an argument for sticking with heavy bolters on the baneblade; besides being cheaper, and having more range, they actually don't discourage enemy charges like the flamers do. If the baneblade is better being stuck in combat, then it may be beneficial not to discourage, or evaporate, enemy charges (which 8 heavy flamers totally will).
I don't know if you read my battle report or not, but even my "classic" Baneblades with 2 (not 4) sponsons and heavy bolters instead of flamers could vaporize a Dreadnought that charged it with all 8 wounds remaining and then Mephiston right after. So baneblades already have enough firepower to melt up to 10 wound units on the charge.
Flamers just make even Orc Hordes melt.
Also my Baneblades came out to only 574 points each iirc (checking now) so considerably cheaper than that Hellhammer.
Commissar Benny wrote: I'm leaning towards ratlings. For the cost of 1 vindicare you can field 1.5 squads of ratlings. Mortal wounds on 6's. Can shoot & move. You can also issue them orders like take aim, rerolling 1's. Meaning they basically have a 2+ to hit. Can't issue orders to Vindicare.
Alas, the ratlings lack the <Regiment> keyword and cannot be issued orders. I had the same clever idea. Thinking instead of using a pair of command squads, though it's far less efficient.
Otto von Bludd wrote: I think there is an argument for sticking with heavy bolters on the baneblade; besides being cheaper, and having more range, they actually don't discourage enemy charges like the flamers do. If the baneblade is better being stuck in combat, then it may be beneficial not to discourage, or evaporate, enemy charges (which 8 heavy flamers totally will).
I don't know if you read my battle report or not, but even my "classic" Baneblades with 2 (not 4) sponsons and heavy bolters instead of flamers could vaporize a Dreadnought that charged it with all 8 wounds remaining and then Mephiston right after. So baneblades already have enough firepower to melt up to 10 wound units on the charge.
Flamers just make even Orc Hordes melt.
Also my Baneblades came out to only 574 points each iirc (checking now) so considerably cheaper than that Hellhammer.
I did read it, that sounded amazing. I was thinking in terms of psychological impact though, when your opponent considers charging "8D6 of Heavy Flamers" or "a bunch of shots, but they only hit on 6!".
Commissar Benny wrote: I'm leaning towards ratlings. For the cost of 1 vindicare you can field 1.5 squads of ratlings. Mortal wounds on 6's. Can shoot & move. You can also issue them orders like take aim, rerolling 1's. Meaning they basically have a 2+ to hit. Can't issue orders to Vindicare.
Alas, the ratlings lack the <Regiment> keyword and cannot be issued orders. I had the same clever idea. Thinking instead of using a pair of command squads, though it's far less efficient.
Hmm, I'm hoping that is an oversight. It makes no sense that Ratlings/Ogryn would not be able to be issued orders. Ogryns take orders from commissars all the time. They too lack the regiment keyword.
Khadorstompy wrote: What do people think of the Stormlord and hiding most of your Heavy weapon Squads inside it? Worth it or too risky? Can commanders still give orders to units inside?
Are defense lines worth it for a conscript shield? With the cover and an Astropath buffing they have 3+ armor vs shooting and 4+ in melee. Seems solid for not too much investment.
Ratlings vs Vindicares. Vindicares seem to have more character killing power while ratlings have more shots and are able to screen your frontline better. Thoughts?
Loading up HWS into a swordlord is fun & relatively effective, but you'll never win games doing it. In 7th orders could not be issued to units embarked in a transport. I would be surprised if they could in 8th. I own a Stormlord & the few times I have fielded it has done very well. That said, I will rarely ever get to use it this edition. For the cost of any of the baneblade variants, you can nearly field an entire brigade detachment.
Haven't analyzed ADL well enough to speak to that yet.
I'm leaning towards ratlings. For the cost of 1 vindicare you can field 1.5 squads of ratlings. Mortal wounds on 6's. Can shoot & move. You can also issue them orders like take aim, rerolling 1's. Meaning they basically have a 2+ to hit. Can't issue orders to Vindicare.
The storm lord its one of the Cheaper Variants as far as I can tell Clocking in at ~450 with all weapons. And Loading it with 20 mortar teams is under 200 points. Now you can make the case that a wall of conscripts can screen just as well. for about half the cost by the time you include the obligatory characters. But be baneblade variant prevents them from being shot at quite handily.
Sadly you cannot issue orders to ratlings (Unless you name your regiment Militarum Axuliria and THAT I thinks will be clarified/errata'd shortly.) as they don't share regiment keyword.
Commissar Benny wrote: I'm leaning towards ratlings. For the cost of 1 vindicare you can field 1.5 squads of ratlings. Mortal wounds on 6's. Can shoot & move. You can also issue them orders like take aim, rerolling 1's. Meaning they basically have a 2+ to hit. Can't issue orders to Vindicare.
Alas, the ratlings lack the <Regiment> keyword and cannot be issued orders. I had the same clever idea. Thinking instead of using a pair of command squads, though it's far less efficient.
Hmm, I'm hoping that is an oversight. It makes no sense that Ratlings/Ogryn would not be able to be issued orders. Ogryns take orders from commissars all the time. They too lack the regiment keyword.
Yeah, I'm kinda hoping the same thing but...
And it gets even weirder; you can issue orders to sentinels. Granted, keeping an officer close to them would be a real pain in the rear, but if they're running around your backfield being mobile fire support, it might maybe work?
Commissar Benny wrote: I'm leaning towards ratlings. For the cost of 1 vindicare you can field 1.5 squads of ratlings. Mortal wounds on 6's. Can shoot & move. You can also issue them orders like take aim, rerolling 1's. Meaning they basically have a 2+ to hit. Can't issue orders to Vindicare.
Alas, the ratlings lack the <Regiment> keyword and cannot be issued orders. I had the same clever idea. Thinking instead of using a pair of command squads, though it's far less efficient.
Hmm, I'm hoping that is an oversight. It makes no sense that Ratlings/Ogryn would not be able to be issued orders. Ogryns take orders from commissars all the time. They too lack the regiment keyword.
Yeah, I'm kinda hoping the same thing but...
And it gets even weirder; you can issue orders to sentinels. Granted, keeping an officer close to them would be a real pain in the rear, but if they're running around your backfield being mobile fire support, it might maybe work?
Orders can only be issued to units with the "INFANTRY" keyword.
The storm lord its one of the Cheaper Variants as far as I can tell Clocking in at ~450 with all weapons. And Loading it with 20 mortar teams is under 200 points. Now you can make the case that a wall of conscripts can screen just as well. for about half the cost by the time you include the obligatory characters. But be baneblade variant prevents them from being shot at quite handily.
Sadly you cannot issue orders to ratlings (Unless you name your regiment Militarum Axuliria and THAT I thinks will be clarified/errata'd shortly.) as they don't share regiment keyword.
Oh yes, 2 mortars in the back of a Stormlord sounds both hilarious and incredibly fun.
The stormlord thing could be replicated with a Banesword but the Tremor Cannon is hilarious. Half movement values and bad advance rolls is actually worth something, especially now that it's "blast" is the same size as a Baneblade's.
I mean think about it, that would drop an enemy Knight to 6" of movement while also having a good chance of hurting it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The stormlord thing could be replicated with a Banesword but the Tremor Cannon is hilarious. Half movement values and bad advance rolls is actually worth something, especially now that it's "blast" is the same size as a Baneblade's.
I mean think about it, that would drop an enemy Knight to 6" of movement while also having a good chance of hurting it.
You mean Banehammer! How could anyone get these easy to remember names mixed up! (-:
It does look interesting. 10 models able to fire is enough to do some damage, yet not such a huge investment in points as the Stormlord is. I guess you could put 8 ogryns and a commissar inside for some shooting and fighting power if you plan to move around, otherwise HWT for camping.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The model I have is made in such a way that it can only change between Banesword/Shadowsword/Stormsword. I never used to bother with the transport variants as I am not a fan of hiding painted models in transports. Anyway, which of these variants do people like? The Shadowsword is pretty powerful but I don't know how highly to rate the reroll damage rolls on the other two guns. The d6 shots also looks poor if it isn't the Shadowsword's mega shot.
I have a company of Stormswords as well and I think they are fantastic. Their re-rolls and damage rules, as well as ignoring cover and offering a -4 to saves (which means everything is saving on, at best, a 6+ unless it is invulnerable) gives it a good reliability. Something like a Shadowsword can have a couple of spectacular turns but also awful turns of shooting, whereas a Stormsword is cheap and offers a way to mitigate the pure unpredictable randomness of the other variants.
Hmm, I'm hoping that is an oversight. It makes no sense that Ratlings/Ogryn would not be able to be issued orders. Ogryns take orders from commissars all the time. They too lack the regiment keyword.
Orders represent the product of constant drills and the authority of the chain of command. Abhumans (and other auxilia units like rough riders) aren't a permanent part of the regiment, so they don't benefit from that kind of conditioned response to orders.
Besides that, ogryns are unlikely to understand any order more complicated than "bad guys over there, gettem!", and ratlings generally don't put too much stock in the bluster of the tall ones.
Hmm, I'm hoping that is an oversight. It makes no sense that Ratlings/Ogryn would not be able to be issued orders. Ogryns take orders from commissars all the time. They too lack the regiment keyword.
Orders represent the product of constant drills and the authority of the chain of command. Abhumans (and other auxilia units like rough riders) aren't a permanent part of the regiment, so they don't benefit from that kind of conditioned response to orders.
Besides that, ogryns are unlikely to understand any order more complicated than "bad guys over there, gettem!", and ratlings generally don't put too much stock in the bluster of the tall ones.
The Ogryn ripper gun needs a burst limiter on it, or the Ogryns just hold the trigger down and enjoy the loud noises. Not really conducive to specialist tactics.
As enthusiastic as I was about the Medi-pack, it now seems kinda lack-buster.
First of all, it only does anything on a 4+. Secondly, it only restores a model or heals one wound.
As far as I know, you cannot resurrect a killed character from the dead simply by being 3" of his location of death.
Its kinda only useful to bring back Guardsmen that blew themselves up with Overcharged plasma. But even then, re-roll 1's to hit will usually avoid that from happening in the first place.
I can see a medic protecting your Warlord as useful. It could give him a couple of wounds over the course of a game, which may stop you losing Slay the Warlord points.
Hmm banehammer vs stormlord. Honestly I kinda prefer the Stormlord.
The Stormlord and can carry 20 more models and have 10 more shoot out.
Also I think its main gun is far superior for most things. They have the same range and AP value the banehammer has +2 Str +1 damage and the ability to half movement. The Stormlord has on average nearly 3 times as many shots.
Seems to me the only place where the banehammer excells is vs T7 vehicles where it wounds on a 3+ compared to the vulcan's 5+. Even then banehammer will do about 6.9 wounds to the Stormlords 6.6 wounds.
Now the halving movement I would consider most important of the banehamer but I dont think it can split its fire from the same weapon to my knowledge.
Future War Cultist wrote: If Ogyrns can't understand orders, they could give them a bonus to make up for it. Something for being close to officers. Call it "yes boss sir!"
I really wish I was better at sculpting, because something about your comment caused the mental image of a bullgryn with a peaked cap and commissar's greatcoat to pop to mind.
Hm, so we can either take Command Squads with Snipers for 1 more point per model, but they can receive orders. With Vox-casters, you also don't need to keep an officer in close proximity.
Remember, with re-roll ones to wound you can have a higher chance of getting a 6, adding a mortal wound in addition to the regular shots.
Or Ratlings, who are 1 point cheaper, can deploy way more efficiently (granting them more chance of getting shots on characters without having to move AND create a HUGE turn 1 no-deepstrike zone.
Doctoralex wrote: Hm, so we can either take Command Squads with Snipers for 1 more point per model, but they can receive orders. With Vox-casters, you also don't need to keep an officer in close proximity.
Remember, with re-roll ones to wound you can have a higher chance of getting a 6, adding a mortal wound in addition to the regular shots.
Or Ratlings, who are 1 point cheaper, can deploy way more efficiently (granting them more chance of getting shots on characters without having to move AND create a HUGE turn 1 no-deepstrike zone.
hmmm....
Ratlings can also move 6" a turn after shooting with no penalty. That toughness 2 is brutal though.
Khadorstompy wrote: Hmm banehammer vs stormlord. Honestly I kinda prefer the Stormlord.
The Stormlord and can carry 20 more models and have 10 more shoot out.
Also I think its main gun is far superior for most things. They have the same range and AP value the banehammer has +2 Str +1 damage and the ability to half movement. The Stormlord has on average nearly 3 times as many shots.
Seems to me the only place where the banehammer excells is vs T7 vehicles where it wounds on a 3+ compared to the vulcan's 5+. Even then banehammer will do about 6.9 wounds to the Stormlords 6.6 wounds.
Now the halving movement I would consider most important of the banehamer but I dont think it can split its fire from the same weapon to my knowledge.
That depends on what you were stuffing into it - the Banehammer can easily take 3 HWss (12, actually, total) and 10 can fire out, which is certainly not bad.
And you can't split fire from the same weapon, but halving movement is a huge deal. Just think of how much fun Knights, Wraithknights, or Heirophants will be moving only 6" per turn while still taking 6-7 wounds per shot, and the Banehammer also has a MASSIVE benefit over the Stormlord when shooting Marines - the Banesword wounds on 2s and the Stormlord wounds on 3's.
There's not a Death Korp thread that I can see so I'm just going to talk in this one.
Combat Engineers are some of the coolest models FW makes. The variety of equipment that lines up with this image makes them look like they would fit right in in an actual trench. Unfortunately that isn't represented on the tabletop. They're just 4+ guys with lasguns that are always rapid firing that can take shells that are pretty much guaranteed to kill the entire unit. They could have been useful if their points costs stayed the same and they could be upgraded to carry, oh I don't know, actual demolition equipment!
NivlacSupreme wrote: There's not a Death Korp thread that I can see so I'm just going to talk in this one.
Combat Engineers are some of the coolest models FW makes. The variety of equipment that lines up with this image makes them look like they would fit right in in an actual trench. Unfortunately that isn't represented on the tabletop. They're just 4+ guys with lasguns that are always rapid firing that can take shells that are pretty much guaranteed to kill the entire unit. They could have been useful if their points costs stayed the same and they could be upgraded to carry, oh I don't know, actual demolition equipment!
Hopefully this will be improved in 8th.
Rant over. Stay classy Dakka.
Are the FW rules out already? I didn't know they released the DKOK list.
NivlacSupreme wrote: There's not a Death Korp thread that I can see so I'm just going to talk in this one.
Combat Engineers are some of the coolest models FW makes. The variety of equipment that lines up with this image makes them look like they would fit right in in an actual trench. Unfortunately that isn't represented on the tabletop. They're just 4+ guys with lasguns that are always rapid firing that can take shells that are pretty much guaranteed to kill the entire unit. They could have been useful if their points costs stayed the same and they could be upgraded to carry, oh I don't know, actual demolition equipment!
Hopefully this will be improved in 8th.
Rant over. Stay classy Dakka.
Are the FW rules out already? I didn't know they released the DKOK list.
Doctoralex wrote: Remember, with re-roll ones to wound you can have a higher chance of getting a 6, adding a mortal wound in addition to the regular shots.
Does it make more sense to re-roll the to-wounds or the to-hits (in hopes of rolling more to-wound dice)? I was assuming the latter, but my math-hammer-fu is weak.
NivlacSupreme wrote: They're just 4+ guys with lasguns that are always rapid firing that can take shells that are pretty much guaranteed to kill the entire unit.
Well they did have mole mortars (-:
I guess shotguns will be the same as the Guard ones. 12" assault 2 lasgun, with +1 str at 6". I rather like them, as you can advance and shoot at-1 to hit but probably +1 str.
NivlacSupreme wrote: There's not a Death Korp thread that I can see so I'm just going to talk in this one.
Combat Engineers are some of the coolest models FW makes. The variety of equipment that lines up with this image makes them look like they would fit right in in an actual trench. Unfortunately that isn't represented on the tabletop. They're just 4+ guys with lasguns that are always rapid firing that can take shells that are pretty much guaranteed to kill the entire unit. They could have been useful if their points costs stayed the same and they could be upgraded to carry, oh I don't know, actual demolition equipment!
Hopefully this will be improved in 8th.
Rant over. Stay classy Dakka.
Are the FW rules out already? I didn't know they released the DKOK list.
That was mostly a rant about 7th.
Ah right, I didn't see the bit about 8th. Woops.
Yeah, DKOK are cool. One of the few regiments currently being sold that aren't cadians or rambo.
Sad to hear they were mediocre in 7th.
Nope. We haven't been able to do that since the Doctrines book. Cruddace screwed that up for us.
I'm pushing hard for a FAQ/Errata of it. It literally costs them nothing to do so and Guard are basically the only faction in the game where the squad leaders cannot be equipped the same as the rest of the squad.
Nope. We haven't been able to do that since the Doctrines book. Cruddace screwed that up for us.
I'm pushing hard for a FAQ/Errata of it. It literally costs them nothing to do so and Guard are basically the only faction in the game where the squad leaders cannot be equipped the same as the rest of the squad.
Yeah, it is pretty odd. Even marine sergeants come with boltguns standard now. Pretty sure it was chainsword + pistol before.
Nope. We haven't been able to do that since the Doctrines book. Cruddace screwed that up for us.
I'm pushing hard for a FAQ/Errata of it. It literally costs them nothing to do so and Guard are basically the only faction in the game where the squad leaders cannot be equipped the same as the rest of the squad.
Yeah, it is pretty odd. Even marine sergeants come with boltguns standard now. Pretty sure it was chainsword + pistol before.
You'd think that Cadians would be going for more firepower. It seems like the only reason to give a Guard Sergeant a CCW would be ceremonial.
Khadorstompy wrote: Hmm banehammer vs stormlord. Honestly I kinda prefer the Stormlord.
The Stormlord and can carry 20 more models and have 10 more shoot out.
Also I think its main gun is far superior for most things. They have the same range and AP value the banehammer has +2 Str +1 damage and the ability to half movement. The Stormlord has on average nearly 3 times as many shots.
Seems to me the only place where the banehammer excells is vs T7 vehicles where it wounds on a 3+ compared to the vulcan's 5+. Even then banehammer will do about 6.9 wounds to the Stormlords 6.6 wounds.
Now the halving movement I would consider most important of the banehamer but I dont think it can split its fire from the same weapon to my knowledge.
That depends on what you were stuffing into it - the Banehammer can easily take 3 HWss (12, actually, total) and 10 can fire out, which is certainly not bad.
And you can't split fire from the same weapon, but halving movement is a huge deal. Just think of how much fun Knights, Wraithknights, or Heirophants will be moving only 6" per turn while still taking 6-7 wounds per shot, and the Banehammer also has a MASSIVE benefit over the Stormlord when shooting Marines - the Banesword wounds on 2s and the Stormlord wounds on 3's.
Yeah its useful vs Imp knights though it does about the same in wounds. However vs Marines I'm going to have to disagree. Even with the max 12 shots you only getting about 5 wounds with the Bane hammer vs an average 6.6 with the Stormlord.
Yeah but the Stormlord still carries and extra 15 people and a full extra 10 can shoot out.
All of the banehammers utilities come from being 20 points less then the Stormlord and the ability to 1/2 1 unit's movement. This is at the cost of more damaging firepower and more troop capacity.
Just had a thought, turrets in general are completly redundant and offer absolutely no benefit now as everything can shoot 360 degrees. That is very lame, as comparing the taurox to the chimera i realized this. Also, why does the basilisk, wyvern, hydra ( the open topped chimera gun platforms) have 1 more wound then the chimera? Not really sure why they did this, it would make sense give the chimera a little extra durability ( in addition to its one extra toughness) to really differentiate it from the taurox.
Twoshoes23 wrote: Just had a thought, turrets in general are completly redundant and offer absolutely no benefit now as everything can shoot 360 degrees. That is very lame, as comparing the taurox to the chimera i realized this. Also, why does the basilisk, wyvern, hydra ( the open topped chimera gun platforms) have 1 more wound then the chimera? Not really sure why they did this, it would make sense give the chimera a little extra durability ( in addition to its one extra toughness) to really differentiate it from the taurox.
I think the extra toughness is reasonable to note a little bit more armour.
I just mathed out the odds of a squad of 10 ratlings average damage to the Common Marine HQ Types and compared it to a Vindicare assassin.
Damage per Round of Shooting.
10 Ratlings (2.22 vs T4 3+)
(1.85 vs T5 3+)
(1.67 vs T4 2+)
(1.48 vs T5 2+)
vs
Vindicare (1.30 vs T4 3+)
(1.30 vs T5 3+)
(0.67 vs T4 2+)
(0.67 vs T5 2+)
Needless to say I don't think either have great odds out right killing any of the Space Marine HQs in a round even with multiple groups. If someone could check my math would appreciate it.
Nope. We haven't been able to do that since the Doctrines book. Cruddace screwed that up for us.
I'm pushing hard for a FAQ/Errata of it. It literally costs them nothing to do so and Guard are basically the only faction in the game where the squad leaders cannot be equipped the same as the rest of the squad.
Exalted.
I would love to have Sergeants with Lasguns...my Elysians are no longer legal unless I treat the Lasguns with the under slung Grenade Launcher as a Bolter.
Khadorstompy wrote: All of the banehammers utilities come from being 20 points less then the Stormlord and the ability to 1/2 1 unit's movement. This is at the cost of more damaging firepower and more troop capacity.
That's one hell of a good rule tho. Halving a units movement (especially a big gribbly monster) can be huge. And there's no other way of doing it i don't think?
Khadorstompy wrote: I just mathed out the odds of a squad of 10 ratlings average damage to the Common Marine HQ Types and compared it to a Vindicare assassin.
Damage per Round of Shooting.
10 Ratlings (2.22 vs T4 3+)
(1.85 vs T5 3+)
(1.67 vs T4 2+)
(1.48 vs T5 2+)
vs
Vindicare (1.30 vs T4 3+)
(1.30 vs T5 3+)
(0.67 vs T4 2+)
(0.67 vs T5 2+)
Needless to say I don't think either have great odds out right killing any of the Space Marine HQs in a round even with multiple groups. If someone could check my math would appreciate it.
There are a couple of things here we have to keep in mind:
First of all, one squad of Ratlings (70 points) does not compare equally to one Vindicare (90 points), so let's make two squads of Ratlings; one of 10 models (70) and one of three models. (21)
Secondly, their weapons are quite different:
Ratlings: Heav1 S4 ap- damage 1, BUT a wound roll of a 6 is a Mortal Wound IN ADDITION to its regular damage.
Vindicare: Heavy 1 S5 AP -3 damage D3, a roll of a 6 to wound causes D6 damage instead.
Also, the Vindicare always wounds on a 2+ against infantry and invuln saves cannot be made against his attacks. And the target cannot take cover bonuses vs his attacks.
So let's see:
VS T4, 3+4++
Ratlings: 13 shots at BS 3+= 13, 0,67= 8.71 hits. 4+ wound= x 0,5= 4,3 wounds with one pretty much guaranteed mortal wound in addition to that. 3+ save = 4,3 x 0,33= unsaved 1.43, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare: 1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound=x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 6+ save = 0,67 x 0,83= 0,55 unsaved wounds. D3 damage = 0,55 x 2 = unsaved 1.11 wounds. With D6 damage= 0,55 x 3,5= 1.9 unsaved wounds.
However, I feel that the Vindicare's.... talent, is kind of wasted against a mere Space Marine Captain.
Let's take a look at something tougher: Ghazhkull Thraka.
Ratlings:
13 shots at BS 3+= 13 x 0,67= 8.71 hits. 5+ to wound= 8.71 x 0,33= 2.87 wounds. with one additional mortal wound. 2+ save = 2.87 x 0.17= 0.49 unsaved wounds, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare:
1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound= x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 5+ save= 0,45 unsaved wounds. D3 damage= 0,45 x 2 = 0,9 unsaved wounds. With D6 damage= 0,45x 3,5= 1.56 unsaved wounds.
Unfortunately it seems that the Vindicare can't really put out the same amount of damage as the Ratlings, simply due to the fact that they can dish out Mortal Wounds. Even if your roll lucky dice and get D6 damage with the Vindicare, you should get lucky with the Ratlings too and score 2-3 Mortal Wounds, in which case they REALLY outshine the Vindicare.
The only thing the Vindicare has going for him is high survivability. With T 5, 5 wounds a 4+ invuln and -2 to hit if he is in cover, he is a tough nut to crack.
The Ratlings with a mere T2, 4+ save in cover and 1 wound will likely drop models very quick and start losing firepower.
Khadorstompy wrote: I just mathed out the odds of a squad of 10 ratlings average damage to the Common Marine HQ Types and compared it to a Vindicare assassin.
Damage per Round of Shooting.
10 Ratlings (2.22 vs T4 3+)
(1.85 vs T5 3+)
(1.67 vs T4 2+)
(1.48 vs T5 2+)
vs
Vindicare (1.30 vs T4 3+)
(1.30 vs T5 3+)
(0.67 vs T4 2+)
(0.67 vs T5 2+)
Needless to say I don't think either have great odds out right killing any of the Space Marine HQs in a round even with multiple groups. If someone could check my math would appreciate it.
There are a couple of things here we have to keep in mind:
First of all, one squad of Ratlings (70 points) does not compare equally to one Vindicare (90 points), so let's make two squads of Ratlings; one of 10 models (70) and one of three models. (21)
Secondly, their weapons are quite different:
Ratlings: Heav1 S4 ap- damage 1, BUT a wound roll of a 6 is a Mortal Wound IN ADDITION to its regular damage.
Vindicare: Heavy 1 S5 AP -3 damage D3, a roll of a 6 to wound causes D6 damage instead.
Also, the Vindicare always wounds on a 2+ against infantry and invuln saves cannot be made against his attacks. And the target cannot take cover bonuses vs his attacks.
So let's see:
VS T4, 3+4++
Ratlings: 13 shots at BS 3+= 13, 0,67= 8.71 hits. 4+ wound= x 0,5= 4,3 wounds with one pretty much guaranteed mortal wound in addition to that. 3+ save = 4,3 x 0,33= unsaved 1.43, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare: 1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound=x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 6+ save = 0,67 x 0,83= 0,55 unsaved wounds. D3 damage = 0,55 x 2 = unsaved 1.11 wounds. With D6 damage= 0,55 x 3,5= 1.9 unsaved wounds.
However, I feel that the Vindicare's.... talent, is kind of wasted against a mere Space Marine Captain.
Let's take a look at something tougher: Ghazhkull Thraka.
Ratlings:
13 shots at BS 3+= 13 x 0,67= 8.71 hits. 5+ to wound= 8.71 x 0,33= 2.87 wounds. with one additional mortal wound. 2+ save = 2.87 x 0.17= 0.49 unsaved wounds, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare:
1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound= x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 5+ save= 0,45 unsaved wounds. D3 damage= 0,45 x 2 = 0,9 unsaved wounds. With D6 damage= 0,45x 3,5= 1.56 unsaved wounds.
Unfortunately it seems that the Vindicare can't really put out the same amount of damage as the Ratlings, simply due to the fact that they can dish out Mortal Wounds. Even if your roll lucky dice and get D6 damage with the Vindicare, you should get lucky with the Ratlings too and score 2-3 Mortal Wounds, in which case they REALLY outshine the Vindicare.
The only thing the Vindicare has going for him is high survivability. With T 5, 5 wounds a 4+ invuln and -2 to hit if he is in cover, he is a tough nut to crack.
The Ratlings with a mere T2, 4+ save in cover and 1 wound will likely drop models very quick and start losing firepower.
A real non shooting benefit to the ratlings is pushing out that 9" deep strike bubble from your main force very effectively. Ratlings turn 1 will likely do more damage than the Vindicare as you show, but T2 onwards the superior survivability of the assassin will really help. I gotta think the Vindicare will do more damage overall throughout the average game.
So I just played a friends list last night and oh boy did he have some surprises for me. 2 Tempestus Primes (think thats what they're called, the scion guys that can give orders), then four units of 10 man scions each with 4 plasma guns and the sgt had a plasma pistol, all deep striking. The Prime gave the order to reroll ones so overcharge on everything. It is insanely point efficient for the firepower they bring, as they are really cheap and I believe they get plasma guns for 7 points lol.
Khadorstompy wrote: I just mathed out the odds of a squad of 10 ratlings average damage to the Common Marine HQ Types and compared it to a Vindicare assassin.
Damage per Round of Shooting.
10 Ratlings (2.22 vs T4 3+)
(1.85 vs T5 3+)
(1.67 vs T4 2+)
(1.48 vs T5 2+)
vs
Vindicare (1.30 vs T4 3+)
(1.30 vs T5 3+)
(0.67 vs T4 2+)
(0.67 vs T5 2+)
Needless to say I don't think either have great odds out right killing any of the Space Marine HQs in a round even with multiple groups. If someone could check my math would appreciate it.
There are a couple of things here we have to keep in mind:
First of all, one squad of Ratlings (70 points) does not compare equally to one Vindicare (90 points), so let's make two squads of Ratlings; one of 10 models (70) and one of three models. (21)
Secondly, their weapons are quite different:
Ratlings: Heav1 S4 ap- damage 1, BUT a wound roll of a 6 is a Mortal Wound IN ADDITION to its regular damage.
Vindicare: Heavy 1 S5 AP -3 damage D3, a roll of a 6 to wound causes D6 damage instead.
Also, the Vindicare always wounds on a 2+ against infantry and invuln saves cannot be made against his attacks. And the target cannot take cover bonuses vs his attacks.
So let's see:
VS T4, 3+4++
Ratlings: 13 shots at BS 3+= 13, 0,67= 8.71 hits. 4+ wound= x 0,5= 4,3 wounds with one pretty much guaranteed mortal wound in addition to that. 3+ save = 4,3 x 0,33= unsaved 1.43, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare: 1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound=x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 6+ save = 0,67 x 0,83= 0,55 unsaved wounds. D3 damage = 0,55 x 2 = unsaved 1.11 wounds. With D6 damage= 0,55 x 3,5= 1.9 unsaved wounds.
However, I feel that the Vindicare's.... talent, is kind of wasted against a mere Space Marine Captain.
Let's take a look at something tougher: Ghazhkull Thraka.
Ratlings:
13 shots at BS 3+= 13 x 0,67= 8.71 hits. 5+ to wound= 8.71 x 0,33= 2.87 wounds. with one additional mortal wound. 2+ save = 2.87 x 0.17= 0.49 unsaved wounds, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare:
1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound= x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 5+ save= 0,45 unsaved wounds. D3 damage= 0,45 x 2 = 0,9 unsaved wounds. With D6 damage= 0,45x 3,5= 1.56 unsaved wounds.
Unfortunately it seems that the Vindicare can't really put out the same amount of damage as the Ratlings, simply due to the fact that they can dish out Mortal Wounds. Even if your roll lucky dice and get D6 damage with the Vindicare, you should get lucky with the Ratlings too and score 2-3 Mortal Wounds, in which case they REALLY outshine the Vindicare.
The only thing the Vindicare has going for him is high survivability. With T 5, 5 wounds a 4+ invuln and -2 to hit if he is in cover, he is a tough nut to crack.
The Ratlings with a mere T2, 4+ save in cover and 1 wound will likely drop models very quick and start losing firepower.
A real non shooting benefit to the ratlings is pushing out that 9" deep strike bubble from your main force very effectively. Ratlings turn 1 will likely do more damage than the Vindicare as you show, but T2 onwards the superior survivability of the assassin will really help. I gotta think the Vindicare will do more damage overall throughout the average game.
Unless your enemy underestimates the ridiculous models and lets them go on and on, that seems a likely scenario. Still, a Ratling unit is absolutely viable now, if nothing else to draw some fire.
JohnMarik wrote: So I just played a friends list last night and oh boy did he have some surprises for me. 2 Tempestus Primes (think thats what they're called, the scion guys that can give orders), then four units of 10 man scions each with 4 plasma guns and the sgt had a plasma pistol, all deep striking. The Prime gave the order to reroll ones so overcharge on everything. It is insanely point efficient for the firepower they bring, as they are really cheap and I believe they get plasma guns for 7 points lol.
Yeah, AM is insanely strong in this edition
You can have a detachment of 6 Mortar teams (18 total Mortars) for just 162 points, that's 72 hits per turn average at 48" range, couple that with parashooting Scions, all with Plasmas (your friend used the points innefficiently, you can do 4 man squads of them, each with a special weapon, so you don't have to have that filler like your friend did)
Basically you get extremely versatile and cheap, heavy hitting force, AM is simply amazing in 8th
Hellhounds have 1 more wound then a chimera...how does that make sense? Advocating here because i want to use my chimera as a transport for two special weapons squads with 6 demo charges. Figure its got a better chance then a taurox to get there
Twoshoes23 wrote: Hellhounds have 1 more wound then a chimera...how does that make sense?
As do all the open topped artillery.
I would have had the chimera and hellhound have an extra wound over the open topped artillery. But regardless of this, it's great to see the Militarum actually become a decent faction again. I just need to decide what sort of army I want to use going forth. My heart says tanks but I understand that those units aren't quite there yet.
Tauroxes are OK now aren't they? I have a few and I'm hoping that they could be usable.
169 points for dual SWS demo charge chimera kamikaze. Thats a steal of a bullet magnet!!! Time to get moddeling some big bags o' bombs on some of my squads.
Twoshoes23 wrote: 169 points for dual SWS demo charge chimera kamikaze. Thats a steal of a bullet magnet!!! Time to get moddeling some big bags o' bombs on some of my squads.
Don't forget that a squad can only fire one grenade a turn. So maybe one demo charge two flamers?
ahh crap your right that ups it a couple points and certainly lowers the potential damage. Still a viable threat, especially If I drive it straight towards whatever threatening unit the enemy has. Also considering scout sentinel support as well, all in the aim of stopping deep strikes and slowing the enemy advance down a couple of turns.
Twoshoes23 wrote: 169 points for dual SWS demo charge chimera kamikaze. Thats a steal of a bullet magnet!!! Time to get moddeling some big bags o' bombs on some of my squads.
Don't forget that a squad can only fire one grenade a turn. So maybe one demo charge two flamers?
Doctoralex wrote: While I am very glad that IG is a strong faction now, surely it's not just all Plasma-Scions and mortars right?
What else has been working for you people?
I'd like to know people's thoughts/experiences with the Hellhound and the Banewolf.
Also, what do you guys think of Ogryn/Bullgryns?
I like the Hellhound. Good damage, especially with the 2dmg the inferno cannon gets. Very good overwatch with the dual flamers. Losing bs as you take damage doesn't matter, so it makes a good advancing/suicide unit. Add to that the increased chance of exploding for the Hellhound variant and I will certainly be trying it out. For 2 points a stormbolter seems good, 4 shots within 12" and no -1 to hit on the move like a stubber. I'm thinking a pair in 2000pts, with sentinels/rough riders to make a brigade possible.
NenkotaMoon wrote: IG is not strong Conscripts, Scions, and Artillery are strong.
Well, and Hellhounds. And Baneblades. And Tauroxen. And Mortar HWS teams. And the other stuff isn't bad either, since pretty much all of it got cheaper except for tanks and chimeras. I mean, infantry lost combined squads, but commissars made that matter far less (it's probably a buff at this point in a lot of ways), AND they got cheaper, so it's not like they got worse. Oh, and they changed the core rules so that the entire army no longer has their armor negated by every other army's cheapest, crappiest weapons.
But if you keep repeating your mantra about how bad IG are once a page or so, it might become true.
I am afraid the next codex the guard will be nerfed to oblivion again, like what happened for the 5th ---> 6th. After all, we cannot steal the spotlight from the TRUE PROTAGONISTS of the story, or the designer pet army, am I right?
Said this, I am happy because I built a decently sized scions contingent and 6 converted tauroxes before it was cool (I did it mid-7th). If they don't nerf them too hard, I am happy to have my paratroopers, their toy-transports and the fact that I can build the 2 valkyries with different payloads, is more interesting modelling-wise. If such list is just plain "usable", I am happy.
Still, I came in for the tanks even if I stayed for the carapace, so I do wonder if I can expand on a paratroopers + russes list. I have my old magenitzed russes somewhere, I am tempted to start a discussion just to assess I) Which russes are the best II) Which front and sponson weapons suit better each turret weapon III) Which Russes are better as Pask, which as Commander, which as "normal".
Kaiyanwang wrote: Still, I came in for the tanks even if I stayed for the carapace, so I do wonder if I can expand on a paratroopers + russes list. I have my old magenitzed russes somewhere, I am tmpted to start a discussion just to asses
I) Which russes are the best
II) Which front and sponson weapons suit better each turret weapon
III) Which Russes are better as Pask, which as Commander, which as "normal".
If your aim is to close with the enemy, a mix of demolishers and punishers can work. Also, if the annihilator is the cost of a russ + 2 lascannons, I can see that being the popular AT tank. It may even get a slight discount, as some of the twin-weapon costs do.
As for which weapon options to take, it is far more open now. With the addition of split fire, I can see the classic las/bolt layout making a return. Cheap, has some hitting power and by spreading your AT power out you can shoot it one at a time, preventing overkill.
Twoshoes23 wrote: Just had a thought, turrets in general are completly redundant and offer absolutely no benefit now as everything can shoot 360 degrees. That is very lame, as comparing the taurox to the chimera i realized this. Also, why does the basilisk, wyvern, hydra ( the open topped chimera gun platforms) have 1 more wound then the chimera? Not really sure why they did this, it would make sense give the chimera a little extra durability ( in addition to its one extra toughness) to really differentiate it from the taurox.
I think the extra toughness is reasonable to note a little bit more armour.
+1w for a more robust suspension(carrying a big gun instead of a hollow crew compartment.
But -1t for less armour/open topped.
They take wounds easier from lower str weapons(autocannon wounds on a 3+ vs the 4+ for chimera and hellhound), but are better built for taking damage.
Twoshoes23 wrote: Just had a thought, turrets in general are completly redundant and offer absolutely no benefit now as everything can shoot 360 degrees. That is very lame, as comparing the taurox to the chimera i realized this. Also, why does the basilisk, wyvern, hydra ( the open topped chimera gun platforms) have 1 more wound then the chimera? Not really sure why they did this, it would make sense give the chimera a little extra durability ( in addition to its one extra toughness) to really differentiate it from the taurox.
I think the extra toughness is reasonable to note a little bit more armour.
+1w for a more robust suspension(carrying a big gun instead of a hollow crew compartment.
But -1t for less armour/open topped.
They take wounds easier from lower str weapons(autocannon wounds on a 3+ vs the 4+ for chimera and hellhound), but are better built for taking damage.
Twoshoes23 wrote: Just had a thought, turrets in general are completly redundant and offer absolutely no benefit now as everything can shoot 360 degrees. That is very lame, as comparing the taurox to the chimera i realized this. Also, why does the basilisk, wyvern, hydra ( the open topped chimera gun platforms) have 1 more wound then the chimera? Not really sure why they did this, it would make sense give the chimera a little extra durability ( in addition to its one extra toughness) to really differentiate it from the taurox.
I think the extra toughness is reasonable to note a little bit more armour.
+1w for a more robust suspension(carrying a big gun instead of a hollow crew compartment.
But -1t for less armour/open topped.
They take wounds easier from lower str weapons(autocannon wounds on a 3+ vs the 4+ for chimera and hellhound), but are better built for taking damage.
Twoshoes23 wrote: Just had a thought, turrets in general are completly redundant and offer absolutely no benefit now as everything can shoot 360 degrees. That is very lame, as comparing the taurox to the chimera i realized this. Also, why does the basilisk, wyvern, hydra ( the open topped chimera gun platforms) have 1 more wound then the chimera? Not really sure why they did this, it would make sense give the chimera a little extra durability ( in addition to its one extra toughness) to really differentiate it from the taurox.
I think the extra toughness is reasonable to note a little bit more armour.
+1w for a more robust suspension(carrying a big gun instead of a hollow crew compartment.
But -1t for less armour/open topped.
They take wounds easier from lower str weapons(autocannon wounds on a 3+ vs the 4+ for chimera and hellhound), but are better built for taking damage.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Still, I came in for the tanks even if I stayed for the carapace, so I do wonder if I can expand on a paratroopers + russes list. I have my old magenitzed russes somewhere, I am tmpted to start a discussion just to asses
I) Which russes are the best
II) Which front and sponson weapons suit better each turret weapon
III) Which Russes are better as Pask, which as Commander, which as "normal".
If your aim is to close with the enemy, a mix of demolishers and punishers can work. Also, if the annihilator is the cost of a russ + 2 lascannons, I can see that being the popular AT tank. It may even get a slight discount, as some of the twin-weapon costs do.
As for which weapon options to take, it is far more open now. With the addition of split fire, I can see the classic las/bolt layout making a return. Cheap, has some hitting power and by spreading your AT power out you can shoot it one at a time, preventing overkill.
Good point on the split fire. I am still locked on the paradigm of the "dedicated" unit, but maybe in this case the pressure to build units in a certain manner is smaller.
Doctoralex wrote: While I am very glad that IG is a strong faction now, surely it's not just all Plasma-Scions and mortars right?
What else has been working for you people?
I'd like to know people's thoughts/experiences with the Hellhound and the Banewolf.
Also, what do you guys think of Ogryn/Bullgryns?
I like the Hellhound. Good damage, especially with the 2dmg the inferno cannon gets. Very good overwatch with the dual flamers. Losing bs as you take damage doesn't matter, so it makes a good advancing/suicide unit. Add to that the increased chance of exploding for the Hellhound variant and I will certainly be trying it out. For 2 points a stormbolter seems good, 4 shots within 12" and no -1 to hit on the move like a stubber. I'm thinking a pair in 2000pts, with sentinels/rough riders to make a brigade possible.
Storm bolters don't seem to be available to hellhounds.
Khadorstompy wrote: I just mathed out the odds of a squad of 10 ratlings average damage to the Common Marine HQ Types and compared it to a Vindicare assassin.
Damage per Round of Shooting.
10 Ratlings (2.22 vs T4 3+)
(1.85 vs T5 3+)
(1.67 vs T4 2+)
(1.48 vs T5 2+)
vs
Vindicare (1.30 vs T4 3+)
(1.30 vs T5 3+)
(0.67 vs T4 2+)
(0.67 vs T5 2+)
Needless to say I don't think either have great odds out right killing any of the Space Marine HQs in a round even with multiple groups. If someone could check my math would appreciate it.
There are a couple of things here we have to keep in mind:
First of all, one squad of Ratlings (70 points) does not compare equally to one Vindicare (90 points), so let's make two squads of Ratlings; one of 10 models (70) and one of three models. (21)
Secondly, their weapons are quite different:
Ratlings: Heav1 S4 ap- damage 1, BUT a wound roll of a 6 is a Mortal Wound IN ADDITION to its regular damage.
Vindicare: Heavy 1 S5 AP -3 damage D3, a roll of a 6 to wound causes D6 damage instead.
Also, the Vindicare always wounds on a 2+ against infantry and invuln saves cannot be made against his attacks. And the target cannot take cover bonuses vs his attacks.
So let's see:
VS T4, 3+4++
Ratlings: 13 shots at BS 3+= 13, 0,67= 8.71 hits. 4+ wound= x 0,5= 4,3 wounds with one pretty much guaranteed mortal wound in addition to that. 3+ save = 4,3 x 0,33= unsaved 1.43, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare: 1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound=x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 6+ save = 0,67 x 0,83= 0,55 unsaved wounds. D3 damage = 0,55 x 2 = unsaved 1.11 wounds. With D6 damage= 0,55 x 3,5= 1.9 unsaved wounds.
However, I feel that the Vindicare's.... talent, is kind of wasted against a mere Space Marine Captain.
Let's take a look at something tougher: Ghazhkull Thraka.
Ratlings:
13 shots at BS 3+= 13 x 0,67= 8.71 hits. 5+ to wound= 8.71 x 0,33= 2.87 wounds. with one additional mortal wound. 2+ save = 2.87 x 0.17= 0.49 unsaved wounds, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare:
1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound= x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 5+ save= 0,45 unsaved wounds. D3 damage= 0,45 x 2 = 0,9 unsaved wounds. With D6 damage= 0,45x 3,5= 1.56 unsaved wounds.
Unfortunately it seems that the Vindicare can't really put out the same amount of damage as the Ratlings, simply due to the fact that they can dish out Mortal Wounds. Even if your roll lucky dice and get D6 damage with the Vindicare, you should get lucky with the Ratlings too and score 2-3 Mortal Wounds, in which case they REALLY outshine the Vindicare.
The only thing the Vindicare has going for him is high survivability. With T 5, 5 wounds a 4+ invuln and -2 to hit if he is in cover, he is a tough nut to crack.
The Ratlings with a mere T2, 4+ save in cover and 1 wound will likely drop models very quick and start losing firepower.
A real non shooting benefit to the ratlings is pushing out that 9" deep strike bubble from your main force very effectively. Ratlings turn 1 will likely do more damage than the Vindicare as you show, but T2 onwards the superior survivability of the assassin will really help. I gotta think the Vindicare will do more damage overall throughout the average game.
That's why they have "Shoot sharp and scarper" though.
You should be setting them up in or near some piece of terrain so they can pop out, shoot, then pop back into cover on their turn so they can't be shot.
Essentially you need to channel your annoying Tau player and Jump Shoot Jump with them, since heavy only causes you -1 to hit when you move back into position next turn. You're mainly fishing for 6's anyways and those will be the same whether you moved or stayed put.
Khadorstompy wrote: I just mathed out the odds of a squad of 10 ratlings average damage to the Common Marine HQ Types and compared it to a Vindicare assassin.
Damage per Round of Shooting.
10 Ratlings (2.22 vs T4 3+)
(1.85 vs T5 3+)
(1.67 vs T4 2+)
(1.48 vs T5 2+)
vs
Vindicare (1.30 vs T4 3+)
(1.30 vs T5 3+)
(0.67 vs T4 2+)
(0.67 vs T5 2+)
Needless to say I don't think either have great odds out right killing any of the Space Marine HQs in a round even with multiple groups. If someone could check my math would appreciate it.
There are a couple of things here we have to keep in mind:
First of all, one squad of Ratlings (70 points) does not compare equally to one Vindicare (90 points), so let's make two squads of Ratlings; one of 10 models (70) and one of three models. (21)
Secondly, their weapons are quite different:
Ratlings: Heav1 S4 ap- damage 1, BUT a wound roll of a 6 is a Mortal Wound IN ADDITION to its regular damage.
Vindicare: Heavy 1 S5 AP -3 damage D3, a roll of a 6 to wound causes D6 damage instead.
Also, the Vindicare always wounds on a 2+ against infantry and invuln saves cannot be made against his attacks. And the target cannot take cover bonuses vs his attacks.
So let's see:
VS T4, 3+4++
Ratlings: 13 shots at BS 3+= 13, 0,67= 8.71 hits. 4+ wound= x 0,5= 4,3 wounds with one pretty much guaranteed mortal wound in addition to that. 3+ save = 4,3 x 0,33= unsaved 1.43, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare: 1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound=x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 6+ save = 0,67 x 0,83= 0,55 unsaved wounds. D3 damage = 0,55 x 2 = unsaved 1.11 wounds. With D6 damage= 0,55 x 3,5= 1.9 unsaved wounds.
However, I feel that the Vindicare's.... talent, is kind of wasted against a mere Space Marine Captain.
Let's take a look at something tougher: Ghazhkull Thraka.
Ratlings:
13 shots at BS 3+= 13 x 0,67= 8.71 hits. 5+ to wound= 8.71 x 0,33= 2.87 wounds. with one additional mortal wound. 2+ save = 2.87 x 0.17= 0.49 unsaved wounds, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare:
1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound= x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 5+ save= 0,45 unsaved wounds. D3 damage= 0,45 x 2 = 0,9 unsaved wounds. With D6 damage= 0,45x 3,5= 1.56 unsaved wounds.
Unfortunately it seems that the Vindicare can't really put out the same amount of damage as the Ratlings, simply due to the fact that they can dish out Mortal Wounds. Even if your roll lucky dice and get D6 damage with the Vindicare, you should get lucky with the Ratlings too and score 2-3 Mortal Wounds, in which case they REALLY outshine the Vindicare.
The only thing the Vindicare has going for him is high survivability. With T 5, 5 wounds a 4+ invuln and -2 to hit if he is in cover, he is a tough nut to crack.
The Ratlings with a mere T2, 4+ save in cover and 1 wound will likely drop models very quick and start losing firepower.
A real non shooting benefit to the ratlings is pushing out that 9" deep strike bubble from your main force very effectively. Ratlings turn 1 will likely do more damage than the Vindicare as you show, but T2 onwards the superior survivability of the assassin will really help. I gotta think the Vindicare will do more damage overall throughout the average game.
That's why they have "Shoot sharp and scarper" though.
You should be setting them up in or near some piece of terrain so they can pop out, shoot, then pop back into cover on their turn so they can't be shot.
Essentially you need to channel your annoying Tau player and Jump Shoot Jump with them, since heavy only causes you -1 to hit when you move back into position next turn. You're mainly fishing for 6's anyways and those will be the same whether you moved or stayed put.
Yep that is definitely possible! Comes at a price of -1 to hit though, with sniper rifles being Heavy.
Alright. I'm going to use Pask and 2 Tank Commanders in my first list.
I'm planning on all plasma and lascannons on the Tank Commanders, since they get Pasks orders.
But the question is what is the best turret for Pask? He's got BS2+, but the executioner turret is still too scary. Is a battle cannon better? or a vanquisher? I don't need a punisher as there will be both wyverns and conscripts around.
The battle cannon seems like the better choice since vanquishers are (stupidly) STR 8, meaning they have a 50/50 chance to wound the targets they are made for. On the other hand(!), I'll have 16 CP, so that 4+ to wound a T 8 units can be rerolled each shooting phase.
Ok I am looking at
2 x squads of 50 conscripts
1 x commissar
Straken
Uriah jacobus
That will give us 2 orders for the conscripts.
Leadership bubble of 10 (9 from Straken +1 from uriah)
And an extra 2 attacks each for all the conscripts?
Twoshoes makes a very good point:
Under the current rules for 8th turrets are useless, and in fact a detriment to the vehicle carrying them. As vehicles have a 369 degree firearc now, turrets have no real special purpose, but their addition increases the height of the vehicle in question, meaning that it has a harder time taking cover.
NenkotaMoon wrote: IG is not strong Conscripts, Scions, and Artillery are strong.
Well, and Hellhounds. And Baneblades. And Tauroxen. And Mortar HWS teams. And the other stuff isn't bad either, since pretty much all of it got cheaper except for tanks and chimeras. I mean, infantry lost combined squads, but commissars made that matter far less (it's probably a buff at this point in a lot of ways), AND they got cheaper, so it's not like they got worse. Oh, and they changed the core rules so that the entire army no longer has their armor negated by every other army's cheapest, crappiest weapons.
But if you keep repeating your mantra about how bad IG are once a page or so, it might become true.
I'm not saying it's bad, Im saying that there are certain things that are available and more iconic are pretty useless. And when I mean artillery I include mortar. I'm actually a huge advocate for mortar as I even used it in my Company Command teams whenever possible. Our arty is gonna wreck gak. Baneblades are too expensive still for regular play (more just $ cost).Flamers I also advocated here already were very effective.
I hate Tauroxes, even them being good wont stop me from despising how they look. Unfortunately, I don't have the money to convert them to have Chimera treads.
I do like a lot of the rules, but a lot of the stuff that I got into Guard for isn't there for me. I came for Tanks and Chimera, with big groups of men running and shooting everything they can. Now I can only take big groups of men.
Though I will say it is way better than 7E. Regardless of how I feel I will take 8E any day of the week over 7E.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
master of ordinance wrote: Twoshoes makes a very good point:
Under the current rules for 8th turrets are useless, and in fact a detriment to the vehicle carrying them. As vehicles have a 369 degree firearc now, turrets have no real special purpose, but their addition increases the height of the vehicle in question, meaning that it has a harder time taking cover.
jaxor1983 wrote: Alright. I'm going to use Pask and 2 Tank Commanders in my first list.
I'm planning on all plasma and lascannons on the Tank Commanders, since they get Pasks orders.
But the question is what is the best turret for Pask? He's got BS2+, but the executioner turret is still too scary. Is a battle cannon better? or a vanquisher? I don't need a punisher as there will be both wyverns and conscripts around.
The battle cannon seems like the better choice since vanquishers are (stupidly) STR 8, meaning they have a 50/50 chance to wound the targets they are made for. On the other hand(!), I'll have 16 CP, so that 4+ to wound a T 8 units can be rerolled each shooting phase.
Almost anything is better then the Vanquisher. Even if the Vanquisher auto-hit it's damage wouldn't rise in any notable fashion.
Whatever you go with I'd say just make it cheap. You're already investing enough points into the commanders.
MrPyro wrote: Any mathhammer for a plasma cannon vs lascannon on sentinels?
No need.
They have different targets of choice.
A Lascannon wants to fire at big-nasties.
The Plasmacannon wants to fire at heavy infantry.
Now, that said, plasma as a whole got better. It only overheats if you choose to supercharge. You only need to supercharge if you find yourself facing down the big-nasties without the proper tools available to take them out. With guard having a multi-detachment need you should find yourself with plenty of command points if you do decide to supercharge.
Plasma on a moving sentinel will be getting and average of 2, 5+ to hit s7 single damage shots that only completely negates carapace or lesser armor. S7 means it will only wound Lascannon targets on a 5+. Lascannon targets are also still going to get a 6+ save. Take all that into accout and you get a single shot doing 1/3*1/3*5/6 damage or .0925925 per shot. Supercharge only increases most lascannon target to wounds to 50% and doubles damage. This amounts to .2777 damage per shot with a 1in6 to kill your sentinel. Against a SM the sentinel will score .185 damage per shot without supercharge, and average 2 shots per turn.
NenkotaMoon wrote: IG is not strong Conscripts, Scions, and Artillery are strong.
Well, and Hellhounds. And Baneblades. And Tauroxen. And Mortar HWS teams. And the other stuff isn't bad either, since pretty much all of it got cheaper except for tanks and chimeras. I mean, infantry lost combined squads, but commissars made that matter far less (it's probably a buff at this point in a lot of ways), AND they got cheaper, so it's not like they got worse. Oh, and they changed the core rules so that the entire army no longer has their armor negated by every other army's cheapest, crappiest weapons.
But if you keep repeating your mantra about how bad IG are once a page or so, it might become true.
I'm not saying it's bad, Im saying that there are certain things that are available and more iconic are pretty useless. And when I mean artillery I include mortar. I'm actually a huge advocate for mortar as I even used it in my Company Command teams whenever possible. Our arty is gonna wreck gak. Baneblades are too expensive still for regular play (more just $ cost).Flamers I also advocated here already were very effective.
I hate Tauroxes, even them being good wont stop me from despising how they look. Unfortunately, I don't have the money to convert them to have Chimera treads.
I do like a lot of the rules, but a lot of the stuff that I got into Guard for isn't there for me. I came for Tanks and Chimera, with big groups of men running and shooting everything they can. Now I can only take big groups of men.
Though I will say it is way better than 7E. Regardless of how I feel I will take 8E any day of the week over 7E.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about the 8th edition update to our army. I came to IG to run Mechanised Veterans with Armoured Support, and now my options for any kind of competitive play have been reduced to Guardsmen, Conscripts and Artillery. Hell, I dont even have any Artillery. I WAS going to purchase three Basilisks to convert into Medusa's (them being more fluffy and fitting with my army) but them GW removed them from the book. Now I find myself in possession of a semi finished army (no army is ever finished, suggestions otherwise are false and heresy ) that has been rendered utterly obsolete overnight.
In all honesty, whilst some things have finally been fixed and made better, there are still major issues with IG. Leman Russ tanks are pretty much useless, barring the odd one or two. Chimeras are actually weaker than their open-topped artillery compatriots. Veterans have gone from being a solid troops choice to becoming overpriced and useless. Tauroxes are still a fugly abortion of a model, no mater how much GW buffs them. Ogryns are still overpriced and weak in combat. Ratlings are still questionable. The Deathstrike Missile is still a joke. This update, hell - this entire edition, feels like a desperate bid by GW to get people to purchase all the model kits that no one wanted to get in previous editions through the selective tactical nerfing of the models that people did buy and did want.
Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting.
Edit: They are in fact BUFFED significantly.
I see 1 tank there.
I also saw a lot of IFV's and 2 artillery pieces.
Watching it now to see what that tank achieves.
Edit: 3 tanks. There's 2 Banewolves
Okay, I watched most of it. I skipped around, trying to just watch the IG Shooting phases. I don't think I saw the Battle Cannon do a thing. I did see the tank use it's trio of heavy flamers on necrons, but I didn't see the primary cannon do anything. I can buy Chimerae or Hellhounds if I need tanks to cart flamers around.
Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting.
Edit: They are in fact BUFFED significantly.
I see 1 tank there.
I also saw a lot of IFV's and 2 artillery pieces.
Watching it now to see what that tank achieves.
Edit: 3 tanks. There's 2 Banewolves
Okay, I watched most of it. I skipped around, trying to just watch the IG Shooting phases. I don't think I saw the Battle Cannon do a thing. I did see the tank use it's trio of heavy flamers on necrons, but I didn't see the primary cannon do anything. I can buy Chimerae or Hellhounds if I need tanks to cart flamers around.
Mech Guard means Guardsmen / Vets in transports supported by other vehicles, which I'm sure you know, and that is what was showcased in the video. Others were lamenting the apparent death of this playstyle which, as this video shows, is a premature lamentation.
As for the Leman Russ, BS3 (BS4+ now) Russes were never great, even when they shot templates. That is why he gave his heavy flamers, to mitigate that poor BS and to function as close range support for his assault, which it did very well when it wasn't tied up in combat, which it was for a couple turns. If you want to use ranged weapons and keep your Russ back, simply mitigate that BS4+ with a Tank Commander, rather than flamers. If you want to just run a vanilla Russ with a mediocre BS than of course its shooting is going to be mediocre, just like it always was.
Okay whilst we've seen that Veterans lose Carapace, Camo Cloaks and some weapon options (e.g. Plasma Guns) in the index, is there some hope they'll be returned to us when the dedicated IG codex comes out or is that pretty much dead for sure?
I definitely hope camo cloaks and camo netting at least come back in the codex. I sure would like to have all my vehicles rolling around (or not rolling, since you have to sit still to get the netting bonus) with a 2+ save.
Otto Weston wrote: Okay whilst we've seen that Veterans lose Carapace, Camo Cloaks and some weapon options (e.g. Plasma Guns) in the index, is there some hope they'll be returned to us when the dedicated IG codex comes out or is that pretty much dead for sure?
Vets are dead pretty much now. Their only hopes is that.
Khadorstompy wrote: I just mathed out the odds of a squad of 10 ratlings average damage to the Common Marine HQ Types and compared it to a Vindicare assassin.
Damage per Round of Shooting.
10 Ratlings (2.22 vs T4 3+)
(1.85 vs T5 3+)
(1.67 vs T4 2+)
(1.48 vs T5 2+)
vs
Vindicare (1.30 vs T4 3+)
(1.30 vs T5 3+)
(0.67 vs T4 2+)
(0.67 vs T5 2+)
Needless to say I don't think either have great odds out right killing any of the Space Marine HQs in a round even with multiple groups. If someone could check my math would appreciate it.
There are a couple of things here we have to keep in mind:
First of all, one squad of Ratlings (70 points) does not compare equally to one Vindicare (90 points), so let's make two squads of Ratlings; one of 10 models (70) and one of three models. (21)
Secondly, their weapons are quite different:
Ratlings: Heav1 S4 ap- damage 1, BUT a wound roll of a 6 is a Mortal Wound IN ADDITION to its regular damage.
Vindicare: Heavy 1 S5 AP -3 damage D3, a roll of a 6 to wound causes D6 damage instead.
Also, the Vindicare always wounds on a 2+ against infantry and invuln saves cannot be made against his attacks. And the target cannot take cover bonuses vs his attacks.
So let's see:
VS T4, 3+4++
Ratlings: 13 shots at BS 3+= 13, 0,67= 8.71 hits. 4+ wound= x 0,5= 4,3 wounds with one pretty much guaranteed mortal wound in addition to that. 3+ save = 4,3 x 0,33= unsaved 1.43, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare: 1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound=x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 6+ save = 0,67 x 0,83= 0,55 unsaved wounds. D3 damage = 0,55 x 2 = unsaved 1.11 wounds. With D6 damage= 0,55 x 3,5= 1.9 unsaved wounds.
However, I feel that the Vindicare's.... talent, is kind of wasted against a mere Space Marine Captain.
Let's take a look at something tougher: Ghazhkull Thraka.
Ratlings:
13 shots at BS 3+= 13 x 0,67= 8.71 hits. 5+ to wound= 8.71 x 0,33= 2.87 wounds. with one additional mortal wound. 2+ save = 2.87 x 0.17= 0.49 unsaved wounds, with one additional mortal wound.
Vindicare:
1 shot at BS 2+ = 1 x 0,83= 0,83 hits. 2+ to wound= x 0,83= 0,67 wounds, with 0,14 chance it being D6 wounds. 5+ save= 0,45 unsaved wounds. D3 damage= 0,45 x 2 = 0,9 unsaved wounds. With D6 damage= 0,45x 3,5= 1.56 unsaved wounds.
Unfortunately it seems that the Vindicare can't really put out the same amount of damage as the Ratlings, simply due to the fact that they can dish out Mortal Wounds. Even if your roll lucky dice and get D6 damage with the Vindicare, you should get lucky with the Ratlings too and score 2-3 Mortal Wounds, in which case they REALLY outshine the Vindicare.
The only thing the Vindicare has going for him is high survivability. With T 5, 5 wounds a 4+ invuln and -2 to hit if he is in cover, he is a tough nut to crack.
The Ratlings with a mere T2, 4+ save in cover and 1 wound will likely drop models very quick and start losing firepower.
A real non shooting benefit to the ratlings is pushing out that 9" deep strike bubble from your main force very effectively. Ratlings turn 1 will likely do more damage than the Vindicare as you show, but T2 onwards the superior survivability of the assassin will really help. I gotta think the Vindicare will do more damage overall throughout the average game.
That's why they have "Shoot sharp and scarper" though.
You should be setting them up in or near some piece of terrain so they can pop out, shoot, then pop back into cover on their turn so they can't be shot.
Essentially you need to channel your annoying Tau player and Jump Shoot Jump with them, since heavy only causes you -1 to hit when you move back into position next turn. You're mainly fishing for 6's anyways and those will be the same whether you moved or stayed put.
Well, -1 to hit reduces the number of wounds you get. Stuff is going to die anyway, reducing the firepower of ratlings in order to keep them alive seems counter productive.
Dovis wrote: You can have a detachment of 6 Mortar teams (18 total Mortars) for just 162 points, that's 72 hits per turn average at 48" range, couple that with parashooting Scions, all with Plasmas (your friend used the points innefficiently, you can do 4 man squads of them, each with a special weapon, so you don't have to have that filler like your friend did)
What am I missing? 18 mortars=average 63 shots=31.5 hits in average. To get 72 hits with 18 mortars would basically require all rolling 6 for shots and then have BS4.
As it is 18 flamers don't cause 72 hits in average and they hit automatically. Mortars need to hit.
NenkotaMoon wrote: You messed up more than that, whatever you were trying to prove to us.
BTW
Command point rules, having some trouble figuring out how to calculate that.
I have a feeling no amount of evidence of any kind would dissuade you from your doomsaying at this point.
One tank that did almost nothing the entire game, except for a brief desperate spray of flamers before it was locked down in close combat
IFV's that really did not do much
Artillery platforms that really did all the legwork.
Whatever you where trying to prove, unless it was that Leman Russ are bad, you failed at.
I made some updates to my spreadsheet. I've got the points per model assuming all default wargear included as well. I'm a little (read: considerably) colorblind and I picked colors that made sense to me. Let me know if the colors are too jarring for anyone, and I'll change/remove them.
I've only done AM for now since that's who I play, and they have the most stuff to keep track of. I might do the other factions in Imperium 2 later. I want to get a whole sheet for Imperium 1 together also, but there's a lot of stuff in that and I'm lazy.
NenkotaMoon wrote: You messed up more than that, whatever you were trying to prove to us.
BTW
Command point rules, having some trouble figuring out how to calculate that.
I have a feeling no amount of evidence of any kind would dissuade you from your doomsaying at this point.
That evidence is encouraging our doomsaying!
I saw one tank, it did more with it's secondary armaments than it did with it's main gun, and even then achieved next to nothing. Note that a pair of Hellhounds costs 220 points, and a Leman Russ with Heavy Flamers costs about 205.
The artillery wasn't that useful either, it's combined fire mildly annoyed some Destroyers.
It seems the only real value of a leman russ battle tank or demolisher is to have heavy flamers and tie things up. However, tank commanders with bs3+ rerolling 1's battle cannons or executioner turrets should be on the good side of mediocre for the points. Obviously they won't be invited to a min max win at all costs list. That would be all mortars, manticores, tempestus command squads.
In other words all the things that most IG players did not bother with in the last couple of editions.
I guess this means we all need to go and buy new things right?
But to be fair this is still all a great deal of speculation, as we don't know what sort of new regiment-specific abilities the codex will contain. All it really takes is for them to hand out some fancy strategems that you use each shooting phase for tanks to become very good, or some additional tank orders that only work if you have an all cadian tank army. There could even be a games workshop armored battle group.
jaxor1983 wrote: But to be fair this is still all a great deal of speculation, as we don't know what sort of new regiment-specific abilities the codex will contain. All it really takes is for them to hand out some fancy strategems that you use each shooting phase for tanks to become very good, or some additional tank orders that only work if you have an all cadian tank army. There could even be a games workshop armored battle group.
Those tank orders and those strategems better be damn good, like "Tanks automatically max-roll Shots and Damage".
At the very least, the guns should have fixed damage values and not have to roll to-hit. Then they'd be passable, if somewhat poor for their cost.
jaxor1983 wrote: But to be fair this is still all a great deal of speculation, as we don't know what sort of new regiment-specific abilities the codex will contain. All it really takes is for them to hand out some fancy strategems that you use each shooting phase for tanks to become very good, or some additional tank orders that only work if you have an all cadian tank army. There could even be a games workshop armored battle group.
Those tank orders and those strategems better be damn good, like "Tanks automatically max-roll Shots and Damage".
At the very least, the guns should have fixed damage values and not have to roll to-hit. Then they'd be passable, if somewhat poor for their cost.
Pretty much this, especially when you consider that a Battle Cannon (At least an 8" shell as per the model) is now only doing as many 'shots' as a Frag Grenade (you can carry it in your hand). The Demolisher cannon is doing even less, unless you are firing at a blob target, and then it is averaging 4 shots, as opposed to the Battle Cannons 3-4, with the maximum still capped at 6. Exterminators twin autocannons are no longer twinlinked, menaning that you essentially have two regular autocannons with a shorter range.
All in all this edition looks set to shaft Guard players massively, unless they are willing to invest in Mortars, Storm Troopers and Hellhounds. And when I say "invest" I mean "Go out and purchase enough models to build an army entirely composed of"
The worst part for me is that Tanks can now be locked in close combat, essentially making them useless for the only thing that they might have been good for: close support with Flamers.
I don't think so. They're four (usually) HWTs with T8 and 3+.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You're paying for durability, not damage output.
Except 2 Hellhounds have 22 wounds between them. Let's say we buy a Leman Russ with 3 Heavy Flamers and a Battle Cannon. We've got one absolute gak-pile of a gun, and 3 Heavy Flamers. We've also got 12 wounds. It costs about 205 points, IIRC. Or we buy 2 Hellhounds, for 220 points. They have 2 Heavy Flamers and 2 Inferno Cannons, which are double-range Heavy Flamers with double damage and +1 Str. We also have 22 wounds between the two tanks, and we have +2" of movement.
If we wanted a Vanquisher with Multimeltas, we could have bought 2 Devil Dogs. In fact, while the Vanquisher gets 3 Melta shots and 1 Lascannon, the Devil Dogs get 2+2D3 Melta shots, which is, at minimum, equivalent to the Vanquisher and most of the time better.
I'm debating whether or not I want to go out and buy Hellhounds/Devildogs. I've got Immolators, and I'm happy with my Immolators, and I feel that if I'm going to spam "cheap" flamer and multimelta armed tanks I might as well spam Immolators and Dominions, which I already own, and not be playing IG.
What GW has done is gone and made the units that nobody ever brought good, and the units that everybody has lots of terrible.
What GW has done is gone and made the units that nobody ever brought good, and the units that everybody has lots of terrible.
Which is exactly what I just said. This is a blatant money grab as IG players are now left with the choices of either bringing their old armies and models and being clobbered by other players, or staying able to fight (just about) but having to shell out around about £500 for an entirely new army.
Your choice, pay or lose.
Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.
"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "
Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?
Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.
If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.
But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.
Except 2 Hellhounds have 22 wounds between them. Let's say we buy a Leman Russ with 3 Heavy Flamers and a Battle Cannon. We've got one absolute gak-pile of a gun, and 3 Heavy Flamers. We've also got 12 wounds. It costs about 205 points, IIRC. Or we buy 2 Hellhounds, for 220 points. They have 2 Heavy Flamers and 2 Inferno Cannons, which are double-range Heavy Flamers with double damage and +1 Str. We also have 22 wounds between the two tanks, and we have +2" of movement.
If we wanted a Vanquisher with Multimeltas, we could have bought 2 Devil Dogs. In fact, while the Vanquisher gets 3 Melta shots and 1 Lascannon, the Devil Dogs get 2+2D3 Melta shots, which is, at minimum, equivalent to the Vanquisher and most of the time better.
It used to be 150 points if you ran the LRBT cheap and cheerful, right? So you're paying 12 more points to have the new vehicle rules. As far as the cannon goes, you could only count on it hitting where it was supposed to maybe half the time anyway. With that in mind, I typically brought it expecting maybe 2-3 hits half the time and whatever happy little accidents the opponent would generously offer me. Now we have d6 attacks that we have to roll to hit and have 50% to hit. I'll agree that it's not better on paper, but the upper bounds is at least not limited by opponent skill, and I look forward to not seeing these goofy conga lines stretching across the board to prevent me from getting more than a couple splats with the cannon at a time.
I mean, it certainly didn't overall get better. It probably got worse. I'll agree with that. I'm just saying to compare it to what it was before you judge it too harshly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Otto von Bludd wrote: Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.
"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "
Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?
Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.
If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.
But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.
I kinda get the feeling that 7th edition formation hysteria left everyone a little used to expecting a unit to singlehandedly win a game.
Otto von Bludd wrote:Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.
"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "
Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?
Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.
If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.
But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.
No. At the very least, it showed the Mech part of the Mech Guard being generally harmless, and the rest of the list being able to beat an enemy who could have been a goldfish. It showed tanks, and I mean MBT's, not little IFV's or SPG's or APC's, doing nothing at all. And even then the SPG's were only marginally less harmless than the tanks.
My favorite Leman Russ is the Vanquisher. It's been bad since 6th. What Leman Russ variant I like is besides the point.
Except 2 Hellhounds have 22 wounds between them. Let's say we buy a Leman Russ with 3 Heavy Flamers and a Battle Cannon. We've got one absolute gak-pile of a gun, and 3 Heavy Flamers. We've also got 12 wounds. It costs about 205 points, IIRC. Or we buy 2 Hellhounds, for 220 points. They have 2 Heavy Flamers and 2 Inferno Cannons, which are double-range Heavy Flamers with double damage and +1 Str. We also have 22 wounds between the two tanks, and we have +2" of movement.
If we wanted a Vanquisher with Multimeltas, we could have bought 2 Devil Dogs. In fact, while the Vanquisher gets 3 Melta shots and 1 Lascannon, the Devil Dogs get 2+2D3 Melta shots, which is, at minimum, equivalent to the Vanquisher and most of the time better.
It used to be 150 points if you ran the LRBT cheap and cheerful, right? So you're paying 12 more points to have the new vehicle rules. As far as the cannon goes, you could only count on it hitting where it was supposed to maybe half the time anyway. With that in mind, I typically brought it expecting maybe 2-3 hits half the time and whatever happy little accidents the opponent would generously offer me. Now we have d6 attacks that we have to roll to hit and have 50% to hit. I'll agree that it's not better on paper, but the upper bounds is at least not limited by opponent skill, and I look forward to not seeing these goofy conga lines stretching across the board to prevent me from getting more than a couple splats with the cannon at a time.
I mean, it certainly didn't overall get better. It probably got worse. I'll agree with that. I'm just saying to compare it to what it was before you judge it too harshly.
I'm not comparing it to previous editions, I'm comparing it to what's around it right now. And it's crap.
Here, last edition comparison, Leman Russ Battle Cannon:
It has a 2/3*33/36 chance of deviating at all [60% chance]. Then, assuming it did deviate, it would still strike the target model 36% of the time, and wound 83% of the time. That's assuming it's shooting at a single infantry model in a field, and it equals it's current performance. But, of course, a direct hit will hit a minimum of 2 infantry models, and when the enemy is dispersed, it's almost impossible not to hit something. And because it was Str.8, it tended to instantly wipe out anything it hit by IDing things. Not amazing, but infinitely better than it is now. It's minimum realistic performance is about equal to our current average performance.
And, of course, if you look at the distribution charts I posted a while back about the tank guns, the maximum expected damage is really about 3 damage to 2 models. After that, it's pretty much in the realm of never-ever-ever going to happen.
daedalus wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Otto von Bludd wrote: Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.
"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "
Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?
Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.
If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.
But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.
I kinda get the feeling that 7th edition formation hysteria left everyone a little used to expecting a unit to singlehandedly win a game.
I'm not expecting it to win a game.I am expecting it to not have a net negative contribution to it's team. I am expecting it to be at least passably okay at doing anything at all.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.
"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "
Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?
Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.
If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.
But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.
Inquisitor Lord katherine has already answered this, but I will extrapolate.
The short answer is No.
The long answer is thus:
No, that video did not show Mech Guard as a viable army, in fact I would be hard pressed to even call that mech guard. Mech Guard consists of a combination of Chimera born infantry and tanks. That army consisted of a couple of footsloggers with a couple of flamethrower tanks and one actual Tank. The rest of the show consisted of armoured scout walkers (Sentinels) and SPG platforms. So, for a start what we have here is closer to a Krieg Assault Brigade than Mechanised Guard.
Next up is the viability question, and to that once again we see that the 'Mech' part of the Guard army presented (two Hellhounds and a LRBT) actually did very little. The LRBT managed to do virtually nothing with its main gun throughout the entire game (proving Katherines chart to be correct) whilst its secondary weapons managed one desultorily drizzle of damage which managed to kill three Warriors, and then the entire vehicle was charged by six Immortals and locked down. It managed to escape and promptly did nothing for the rest of the game.
The Hellhounds fared hardly any better, managing to score a few kills, but at least they did better than their much more expensive cousin.
The Artillery, outside of the Manticore, felt utterly lacklustre, and even the Manticore did not seem to really shine. Sure, the Basilisk's ability to roll 2D6 and pick one helped it, but in the end it just felt meh.
All in all you managed to show that the true core of the Mechanised Guard List (the Leman Russ and the Chimera born Infantry) are under performing heavily. To the point that the LRBT (which I had no problem scoring an average of 5 to 6 hits per shot with) is now actually even wprse than it was before the nerf (and that should have been impossible).
So I am sorry to say to you good sir, but you have proven we old grumblers correct.
Otto von Bludd wrote:Really sirs. What did I say in the post where I linked the video.
"Then tell me that mech guard and tanks are dead. They aren't at all. You are over reacting. "
Did the video show mech guard and tanks (I consider vehicles which previously had the "tank" designation in 7th to be tanks)? Yes or no?
Did it show them winning handily against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
Honestly answer those questions before you claim that said video showed nothing of worth.
If you want to say "Well Otto, your video didn't show my favorite leman russ variant/loadout doing great, I love my battle cannons and heavy bolters" that is fine. You may be disappointed that your particular tank variant wasn't shown. Maybe you are justly perturbed that your battle cannon isn't what you feel it used to be on a stock Leman Russ. Maybe you don't like heavy flamers. That's fine. I didn't claim your favorite variant with your favorite load out was excellent.
But did the video show mech guard and tanks doing well against a competent opponent? Yes or no?
If you don't want to discuss it that is fine, but if you do, at least have the courtesy to address the claim I actually put forth.
No. At the very least, it showed the Mech part of the Mech Guard being generally harmless, and the rest of the list being able to beat an enemy who could have been a goldfish. It showed tanks, and I mean MBT's, not little IFV's or SPG's or APC's, doing nothing at all. And even then the SPG's were only marginally less harmless than the tanks.
If you consider that game to have illustrated that the mech part of the list (~75% of the army) was generally harmless, and that the game did not illustrate mech guard winning handily, we will just have to agree to disagree because clearly we have different definitions of what "harmless" and "winning handily" means. I'm inclined to agree with Deadalus; that so much exposure to 7th has left people with totally unrealistic expectations of what single units are supposed to do on their own. Also, Chimera's and Hellhounds were defined as tanks in 7th, so it's reasonably to still call them tanks.
If any impartial observer looks at a game of 7th Edition mech guard vs necrons and compares it to the 8th edition game in question they will conclude mech guard is better. In 7th the mech guard would have been totally slaughtered, as I have experienced many times while doing little damage to the crons. In the game I posted, the crons were pinned in their deployment zone, unable to heavily damage most of the vehicles while themselves taking heavy casualties from the guard assault. That is a complete turnaround from 7th, and I considered such a game to sufficiently demonstrate that mech guard is not only alive and well, but significantly improved over its 7th edition incarnation.
Inquisitor Lord katherine has already answered this, but I will extrapolate.
The short answer is No.
The long answer is thus:
No, that video did not show Mech Guard as a viable army, in fact I would be hard pressed to even call that mech guard. Mech Guard consists of a combination of Chimera born infantry and tanks. That army consisted of a couple of footsloggers with a couple of flamethrower tanks and one actual Tank. The rest of the show consisted of armoured scout walkers (Sentinels) and SPG platforms. So, for a start what we have here is closer to a Krieg Assault Brigade than Mechanised Guard.
Next up is the viability question, and to that once again we see that the 'Mech' part of the Guard army presented (two Hellhounds and a LRBT) actually did very little. The LRBT managed to do virtually nothing with its main gun throughout the entire game (proving Katherines chart to be correct) whilst its secondary weapons managed one desultorily drizzle of damage which managed to kill three Warriors, and then the entire vehicle was charged by six Immortals and locked down. It managed to escape and promptly did nothing for the rest of the game.
The Hellhounds fared hardly any better, managing to score a few kills, but at least they did better than their much more expensive cousin.
The Artillery, outside of the Manticore, felt utterly lacklustre, and even the Manticore did not seem to really shine. Sure, the Basilisk's ability to roll 2D6 and pick one helped it, but in the end it just felt meh.
All in all you managed to show that the true core of the Mechanised Guard List (the Leman Russ and the Chimera born Infantry) are under performing heavily. To the point that the LRBT (which I had no problem scoring an average of 5 to 6 hits per shot with) is now actually even wprse than it was before the nerf (and that should have been impossible).
So I am sorry to say to you good sir, but you have proven we old grumblers correct.
You didn't see all the veterans in chimeras?
Well I see our problem now. You gentlemen don't see a game where a mechanized infantry force (with only 1 footslogging unit of ogryns), supported by tanks, walkers and artillery which pinned a necron force in it's deployment zone inflicting heavy casualties upon it while taking few in return and going on to win the game as a successful demonstration that mech guard can work in 8th. You don't even consider such a a force to be mech guard. As I said above, our ideas of what counts as a successful game, and what even constitutes a "mech guard" army are so far apart that there isn't any point debating it. I can't dispute your definitions any more than you can mine, so I will, in the interests of avoiding pointless bickering with fellow Guardsmen, cease to press my point.
...
Chimeras?
There was ONE chimera on the entire battlefield, and I assume it contained a command section.
Your 'Mech guard' army may or may not have done well, but that is not the point people are debating. People are looking at the damage output of our tanks, and finding them woefully lacking. And of certain units (like Ogryns) and finding them lacking for the cost.
The artillery? The Manticore CARRIED the Basilisk in terms of effectiveness.
That is what people are debating, not that one or two aspects are good, but the fact that the vast majority of the army (barring those bits people did not usually have) stink.
If you consider that game to have illustrated that the mech part of the list (~75% of the army) was generally harmless, and that the game did not illustrate mech guard winning handily, we will just have to agree to disagree because clearly we have different definitions of what "harmless" and "winning handily" means. I'm inclined to agree with Deadalus; that so much exposure to 7th has left people with totally unrealistic expectations of what single units are supposed to do on their own. Also, Chimera's and Hellhounds were defined as tanks in 7th, so it's reasonably to still call them tanks.
If any impartial observer looks at a game of 7th Edition mech guard vs necrons and compares it to the 8th edition game in question they will conclude mech guard is better. In 7th the mech guard would have been totally slaughtered, as I have experienced many times while doing little damage to the crons. In the game I posted, the crons were pinned in their deployment zone, unable to heavily damage most of the vehicles while themselves taking heavy casualties from the guard assault. That is a complete turnaround from 7th, and I considered such a game to sufficiently demonstrate that mech guard is not only alive and well, but significantly improved over its 7th edition incarnation.
That necron player might as well have been a "goldfish". I only watched turn-to-turn IG shooting phases, but he barely moved and sat in the open with all those guys. That deployment in 7e would have been a very quick defeat for the Necron player in earlier editions, between the Manticore, Russ, and Basilisk he would have lost all of that infantry within a turn or two. He didn't have any arks, or flyers, or anything really. I'm actually wondering where all his points were spent! Yes, the Guard won handily, and it's a wonder considering how much of his list did absolutely nothing! The Chimerae were successful, but that could have gone disastrously if the Necron player had been remotely competent.
I play Heavy Mech Guard against Necrons right now, and in 5e, 6e, and 7e I haven't experience the problem of being "totally slaughtered". 7e has been, by far, the hardest for me since I can't focus fire to block Res Protocols for easy wiping of enemy units. Warriors supported by Arks are an absolute PITA.
Also: Hellhounds are tanks. A Chimera is not a tank. Is a Bradley Fighting Vehicle a tank? Is a M3 Halftrack a tank? The "Tank" rule means "Has Tracks", and provides effectively no representation of what a tank actually is. A Chimera is a Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It looks like a tank, but it has a distinctly different battlefield purpose.
Inquisitor Lord katherine has already answered this, but I will extrapolate.
The short answer is No.
The long answer is thus:
No, that video did not show Mech Guard as a viable army, in fact I would be hard pressed to even call that mech guard. Mech Guard consists of a combination of Chimera born infantry and tanks. That army consisted of a couple of footsloggers with a couple of flamethrower tanks and one actual Tank. The rest of the show consisted of armoured scout walkers (Sentinels) and SPG platforms. So, for a start what we have here is closer to a Krieg Assault Brigade than Mechanised Guard.
Next up is the viability question, and to that once again we see that the 'Mech' part of the Guard army presented (two Hellhounds and a LRBT) actually did very little. The LRBT managed to do virtually nothing with its main gun throughout the entire game (proving Katherines chart to be correct) whilst its secondary weapons managed one desultorily drizzle of damage which managed to kill three Warriors, and then the entire vehicle was charged by six Immortals and locked down. It managed to escape and promptly did nothing for the rest of the game.
The Hellhounds fared hardly any better, managing to score a few kills, but at least they did better than their much more expensive cousin.
The Artillery, outside of the Manticore, felt utterly lacklustre, and even the Manticore did not seem to really shine. Sure, the Basilisk's ability to roll 2D6 and pick one helped it, but in the end it just felt meh.
All in all you managed to show that the true core of the Mechanised Guard List (the Leman Russ and the Chimera born Infantry) are under performing heavily. To the point that the LRBT (which I had no problem scoring an average of 5 to 6 hits per shot with) is now actually even wprse than it was before the nerf (and that should have been impossible).
So I am sorry to say to you good sir, but you have proven we old grumblers correct.
You didn't see all the veterans in chimeras?
Well I see our problem now. You gentlemen don't see a game where a mechanized infantry force (with only 1 footslogging unit of ogryns), supported by tanks, walkers and artillery which pinned a necron force in it's deployment zone inflicting heavy casualties upon it while taking few in return and going on to win the game as a successful demonstration that mech guard can work in 8th. You don't even consider such a a force to be mech guard. As I said above, our ideas of what counts as a successful game, and what even constitutes a "mech guard" army are so far apart that there isn't any point debating it. I can't dispute your definitions any more than you can mine, so I will, in the interests of avoiding pointless bickering with fellow Guardsmen, cease to press my point.
I did. There were 3. The Chimerae were successful at moving guardsmen to the front, which means sure, they're decent. They did their job, and that's it. I do consider that to be Mech Guard, and it's a fair example of a Mech Guard list, if somewhat small. Nobody's concerned about the viability to using Chimerae to move guardsmen into firing positions, though. And that's only 3 Chimerae and 3 squads of Vets, almost none by IG standards.
Maybe I'm old school or whatever, but does anyone else feel that two and a half hours is a little long for a bat rep? Call me old fashioned, but picture and text conveys all the important information in minutes of reading.
Blacksails wrote: Maybe I'm old school or whatever, but does anyone else feel that two and a half hours is a little long for a bat rep? Call me old fashioned, but picture and text conveys all the important information in minutes of reading.
Does anyone have some sort of TL;DW for that vid?
When did I become old?
TL;DR, there was 1 Leman Russ, 1 Basilisk, 1 Manticore, some Sentinels, 3 Chimerae full of Guardsmen, and 2 Hellhounds versus a big blob of necrons on foot, who were standing side by side in a big blob at the front edge of their deployment zone.
The IG advanced. The tank killed 0 models. The Manticore and Basilisk together vaguely annoyed some Destroyers. The IG reached the Necrons, who were basically in the same place they started the game. The Necrons countercharged but didn't kill the tanks and forgot to surround them. Some flayed ones deep-striked near the artillery, and the artillery had to disengage from melee and Sentinels went back to save them. The IG unloaded and shot then there was some close combat, then the IG won.
I prefer to read too. 2 hours is a bit long for a battle report. I just watched the IG shooting phases.
Blacksails wrote:Maybe I'm old school or whatever, but does anyone else feel that two and a half hours is a little long for a bat rep? Call me old fashioned, but picture and text conveys all the important information in minutes of reading.
Does anyone have some sort of TL;DW for that vid?
When did I become old?
daedalus wrote:I agree Blacksails. I've not watched it for that reason. I miss Ailaros's battle reports.
Agree on both counts. I vastly prefer reading reports to watching them. I also loved Ailaros's reports. I've barely been on Dakka for all of 7th edition. I assume he's not around much any more? It is pretty great to see some familiar faces from all the Guard threads.
Played a test game last night against space wolves. Conscripts were my MVP for sure. Lol. He never got to attack anything else in close combat because he couldn't get through them. I think I still had 21 left at the end of the game
I brought 50. I used a priest and Primaris to support and used some standard Ogryn to help out. I strung them out from my lord commissar with a standard as well as a company commander. So they were ld 10 and had access to orders. I used front rank second rank first turn then repeatedly multi charged and then fell back but then got back in the fight. I tied up Bjorn, thunder wolves, blood claws, and 2 predators long enough to kill everything else I could shoot at with my entire army.
jaxor1983 wrote: But to be fair this is still all a great deal of speculation, as we don't know what sort of new regiment-specific abilities the codex will contain. All it really takes is for them to hand out some fancy strategems that you use each shooting phase for tanks to become very good, or some additional tank orders that only work if you have an all cadian tank army. There could even be a games workshop armored battle group.
And said codex might also bring in huge point increases and nerfes to guns even more...
...Pointless to speculate about what codex MIGHT bring. It might bring no regiment specific abilities whatsoever either.
We have index for now and abilities and point costs should work with those, not with some imaginary codex abilities that might or might not come with who knows what changes coming in unspecified timeframe.
edit: Not to mention all cadian tank army bonus etc would still mean russ would suck on non-cadian tank army. Not what one would call balanced game design...
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: TL;DR, there was 1 Leman Russ, 1 Basilisk, 1 Manticore, some Sentinels, 3 Chimerae full of Guardsmen, and 2 Hellhounds
It's one heavy weapon that is better against armor than a lascannon and better against than a heavy bolter. How does the cost of it compare to those heavy weapons? If it's comparable in price or slightly more expensive, it's a very good gun, not gak at all.
Weapons that do huge amounts of damage (which I get the feeling people are expecting) simply don't exist in this edition for anybody. It's not the offense-centered game of 7th. The Leman Russ will sit there and keep churning out damage turn after turn; that's what it's designed for. Of course it can't delete squads like it could previously -- nothing in the game can do that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's the same as Riptides and Stormsurges. They can't just wipe out units anymore, which is causing much gnashing of teeth amongst people who were used to them being able to do that. What they are is durable.
It's one heavy weapon that is better against armor than a lascannon and better against than a heavy bolter. How does the cost of it compare to those heavy weapons? If it's comparable in price or slightly more expensive, it's a very good gun, not gak at all.
Weapons that do huge amounts of damage (which I get the feeling people are expecting) simply don't exist in this edition for anybody. It's not the offense-centered game of 7th. The Leman Russ will sit there and keep churning out damage turn after turn; that's what it's designed for. Of course it can't delete squads like it could previously -- nothing in the game can do that.
I think the gun itself is fairly priced, at 22pts, but you pay so much for the platform that it's just better to get more heavy bolters or more lascannons on cheaper units. It's 162 points for a battle cannon and a heavy bolter, which is enough to get two full HWS with lascannons with points to spare, which put out more damage against both tanks AND MEQ infantry, while having the same number of wounds (though at much lower toughness). As for heavy bolters, you get four full HWS, which are also better against both tanks and infantry, and in this case you get 24 wounds! And if weapons that do huge amounts of damage don't exist anymore, you're going to need to load up on lots of guns to be able to compensate, since the enemies you will be facing are no less durable. And you just aren't getting enough dakka for your dollar with the Leman Russ as it stands.
It's one heavy weapon that is better against armor than a lascannon and better against than a heavy bolter. How does the cost of it compare to those heavy weapons? If it's comparable in price or slightly more expensive, it's a very good gun, not gak at all.
Weapons that do huge amounts of damage (which I get the feeling people are expecting) simply don't exist in this edition for anybody. It's not the offense-centered game of 7th. The Leman Russ will sit there and keep churning out damage turn after turn; that's what it's designed for.
The Russ is actually pretty fragile in 8th, having only a single wound and point of toughness over the Predator
daedalus wrote: I agree Blacksails. I've not watched it for that reason. I miss Ailaros's battle reports.
I was just about to say! That man had the best bat reps. Beautiful army too.
I hope that he makes a return, the Foleran 1st would work quite well in 8th. Most of the problems with infantry wave assault, mainly wound allocation, have now gone. I could see his typical lists being really fun. Is there some sort of bat-signal that we could send up?
The Russ is actually pretty fragile in 8th, having only a single wound and point of toughness over the Predator
That 1 point of thoughness is not to be underestimated though.
Going from T7 to T8 means that all of a sudden, every S4 weapon wounds on 6's instead of 5+, and that Missiles wound on 4+ instead of 3+, etc.
The Russ is actually pretty fragile in 8th, having only a single wound and point of toughness over the Predator
That 1 point of thoughness is not to be underestimated though.
Going from T7 to T8 means that all of a sudden, every S4 weapon wounds on 6's instead of 5+, and that Missiles wound on 4+ instead of 3+, etc.
Compared to when a missile neede to be on its flank to need a 5+, and S4 weapons just bounced off?
The Russ is actually pretty fragile in 8th, having only a single wound and point of toughness over the Predator
That 1 point of thoughness is not to be underestimated though. Going from T7 to T8 means that all of a sudden, every S4 weapon wounds on 6's instead of 5+, and that Missiles wound on 4+ instead of 3+, etc.
Compared to when a missile neede to be on its flank to need a 5+, and S4 weapons just bounced off?
So? The changes are to all vehicles. At least the russ is T8 with a 3+ instead of T6 and a 4+ save, like most necron vehicles. They went from being plasma proof to plasma fodder.
jaxor1983 wrote: But to be fair this is still all a great deal of speculation, as we don't know what sort of new regiment-specific abilities the codex will contain. All it really takes is for them to hand out some fancy strategems that you use each shooting phase for tanks to become very good, or some additional tank orders that only work if you have an all cadian tank army. There could even be a games workshop armored battle group.
And said codex might also bring in huge point increases and nerfes to guns even more...
...Pointless to speculate about what codex MIGHT bring. It might bring no regiment specific abilities whatsoever either.
We have index for now and abilities and point costs should work with those, not with some imaginary codex abilities that might or might not come with who knows what changes coming in unspecified timeframe.
edit: Not to mention all cadian tank army bonus etc would still mean russ would suck on non-cadian tank army. Not what one would call balanced game design...
It's pointless of bemoan the current index we have when we know Every major faction is going to have its own codex with regiment/legion/chapter/order/dynasty specific abilities and/or strategems. All of the comparisons between armies and units we currently know about will be completely different in a couple months (or whenever 'soon' is according to forgeworld). I don't know a single person, except maybe a sisters player, who is excited about the vanilla units and abilities they've been reading about in their collective indexes.
jaxor1983 wrote: But to be fair this is still all a great deal of speculation, as we don't know what sort of new regiment-specific abilities the codex will contain. All it really takes is for them to hand out some fancy strategems that you use each shooting phase for tanks to become very good, or some additional tank orders that only work if you have an all cadian tank army. There could even be a games workshop armored battle group.
And said codex might also bring in huge point increases and nerfes to guns even more...
...Pointless to speculate about what codex MIGHT bring. It might bring no regiment specific abilities whatsoever either.
We have index for now and abilities and point costs should work with those, not with some imaginary codex abilities that might or might not come with who knows what changes coming in unspecified timeframe.
edit: Not to mention all cadian tank army bonus etc would still mean russ would suck on non-cadian tank army. Not what one would call balanced game design...
It's pointless of bemoan the current index we have when we know Every major faction is going to have its own codex with regiment/legion/chapter/order/dynasty specific abilities and/or strategems. All of the comparisons between armies and units we currently know about will be completely different in a couple months (or whenever 'soon' is according to forgeworld). I don't know a single person, except maybe a sisters player, who is excited about the vanilla units and abilities they've been reading about in their collective indexes.
True, but they could have at least tried to put some effort into our army, rather than going for 'Worf Effect V2.0'.
The Russ is actually pretty fragile in 8th, having only a single wound and point of toughness over the Predator
That 1 point of thoughness is not to be underestimated though.
Going from T7 to T8 means that all of a sudden, every S4 weapon wounds on 6's instead of 5+, and that Missiles wound on 4+ instead of 3+, etc.
Compared to when a missile neede to be on its flank to need a 5+, and S4 weapons just bounced off?
With that logic Land Raiders are awful since missiles went from 6's to glace to 4+ to wound with a decent chance to do multiple wounds.
Stop living in 7th, it doesn't do anyone any good.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: TL;DR, there was 1 Leman Russ, 1 Basilisk, 1 Manticore, some Sentinels, 3 Chimerae full of Guardsmen, and 2 Hellhounds
Sounds like Mech Guard to me.
You would think so, but it seems that doesn't quite qualify for some.
master of ordinance wrote: ...
Chimeras?
There was ONE chimera on the entire battlefield, and I assume it contained a command section.
Your 'Mech guard' army may or may not have done well, but that is not the point people are debating. People are looking at the damage output of our tanks, and finding them woefully lacking. And of certain units (like Ogryns) and finding them lacking for the cost.
The artillery? The Manticore CARRIED the Basilisk in terms of effectiveness.
That is what people are debating, not that one or two aspects are good, but the fact that the vast majority of the army (barring those bits people did not usually have) stink.
There were 3 Chimeras and they all had veterans in them. Maybe the problem is we are talking about different batreps.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: TL;DR, there was 1 Leman Russ, 1 Basilisk, 1 Manticore, some Sentinels, 3 Chimerae full of Guardsmen, and 2 Hellhounds
Sounds like Mech Guard to me.
It is mech guard. I didn't say it wasn't. What I did say was the heavy mech of the mech guard was completely worthless.
It's one heavy weapon that is better against armor than a lascannon and better against than a heavy bolter. How does the cost of it compare to those heavy weapons? If it's comparable in price or slightly more expensive, it's a very good gun, not gak at all.
Weapons that do huge amounts of damage (which I get the feeling people are expecting) simply don't exist in this edition for anybody. It's not the offense-centered game of 7th. The Leman Russ will sit there and keep churning out damage turn after turn; that's what it's designed for. Of course it can't delete squads like it could previously -- nothing in the game can do that.
You seem to have missed the numbers. It's so absolutely laughably trash by all standards it isn't funny, and is just sad.
Also, if it's more expensive that a battery of Lascannons [which are superior antitank guns] and a battery of Heavy Bolters [which are superior anti-infantry weapons] combined, then it doesn't matter that it kills infantry better than a Lascannon and tanks better than a Heavy Bolter, it's gak.
And, of course, let me again bring up Hellhounds. a Hellhound and a Devil Dog are superior at killing both tanks and infantry, are more survivable, and are approximately the same price.
Durability is worthless if nobody cares enough to shoot at it.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: TL;DR, there was 1 Leman Russ, 1 Basilisk, 1 Manticore, some Sentinels, 3 Chimerae full of Guardsmen, and 2 Hellhounds
Sounds like Mech Guard to me.
You would think so, but it seems that doesn't quite qualify for some.
I'm not arguing it isn't mech guard, I'm arging it shows mech guard beating an opponent who should have been outright demolished in this edition by the guard list.
That deployment shouldn't have stood a chance. That necron player was terrible.
And, we watched the batrep, and saw the units we are talking about doing nothing at all during the game. The guard player won despite having at-least 300+ points of his list achieve diddly-squat all game.
You seem to have missed the numbers. It's so absolutely laughably trash by all standards it isn't funny, and is just sad.
Also, if it's more expensive that a battery of Lascannons [which are superior antitank guns] and a battery of Heavy Bolters [which are superior anti-infantry weapons] combined, then it doesn't matter that it kills infantry better than a Lascannon and tanks better than a Heavy Bolter, it's gak.
I saw the numbers. I haven't figured out what it costs.
Now, go over to the Tau index and compare their analogous weapons -- the Ion Accelerator and the Pulse Driver Cannon, for instance. They're more or less the same.
Fun fact: a Stormsurge can unload its entire arsenal, including all four Destroyer missiles with markerlights active, at a Leman Russ and probably will not kill it.
You seem to have missed the numbers. It's so absolutely laughably trash by all standards it isn't funny, and is just sad.
Also, if it's more expensive that a battery of Lascannons [which are superior antitank guns] and a battery of Heavy Bolters [which are superior anti-infantry weapons] combined, then it doesn't matter that it kills infantry better than a Lascannon and tanks better than a Heavy Bolter, it's gak.
I saw the numbers. I haven't figured out what it costs.
Now, go over to the Tau index and compare their analogous weapons -- the Ion Accelerator and the Pulse Driver Cannon, for instance. They're more or less the same.
Fun fact: a Stormsurge can unload its entire arsenal, including all four Destroyer missiles with markerlights active, at a Leman Russ and probably will not kill it.
It's not the Russ's problem if the Ion Accelerator is trash too.
It is the Russ's problem that Conscripts are literally more effective at killing tanks with their Lasguns than the Battle Cannon is.
Conscripts vs. Leman Russ: 3.7 wounds average on 10000 trials.
Russ vs. Leman Russ averages 1.15 wounds, on 10000 trials.
I know that you are just comparing in a vacuum but it needs to be pointed out that conscripts will never get 200 shots. With casualties and spacing/ range issues you will never get 50 models within 12" of anything. The Leman Russ does have a massive footprint advantage over conscripts, which is something that needs to be considered. For instance, with good terrain coverage it may be very easy to funnel the conscripts into areas where very few of them get to attack. Imagine trying to get 100 men down a narrow street.
That is something that hasn't been addressed much: terrain. I can see terrain being a lot denser this edition, as the rules are not nearly as clunky when you use more. Things like chimeras and russes would probably do well in a cityfight level of terrain.
I know that you are just comparing in a vacuum but it needs to be pointed out that conscripts will never get 200 shots. With casualties and spacing/ range issues you will never get 50 models within 12" of anything. The Leman Russ does have a massive footprint advantage over conscripts, which is something that needs to be considered. For instance, with good terrain coverage it may be very easy to funnel the conscripts into areas where very few of them get to attack. Imagine trying to get 100 men down a narrow street.
That is something that hasn't been addressed much: terrain. I can see terrain being a lot denser this edition, as the rules are not nearly as clunky when you use more. Things like chimeras and russes would probably do well in a cityfight level of terrain.
Perhaps:
I'm sure there are more efficient packing schemes for the guardsmen too.
It's not the Russ's problem if the Ion Accelerator is trash too.
It is the Russ's problem that Conscripts are literally more effective at killing tanks with their Lasguns than the Battle Cannon is.
Conscripts vs. Leman Russ: 200 shots, 70 hits, 10 wounds, 3 unsaved, average. I can bring it up and run a simulation too if we need further proof.
Russ vs. Leman Russ averages 1 wound, and only have something like a 10% chance of even doing three.
Okay. I'm very sorry. Some of your simulations have been pretty interesting, but this is now officially silly.
"Conscripts are better than russes at anti-tank! All you have to do is get all 50 right next to the tank unharmed! And also have off camera support characters dedicated to them whose points I'm not taking into account when I try to draw this comparison! Tanks are awful."
In reality, those conscripts probably wouldn't be able to get within 12" of the tank within the first turn, and possibly not within the second turn if the opponent has any idea what you're trying to do. Meanwhile, the tank has several turns of firing that your conscripts don't get, or get half the effectiveness you're showing, and that's still being generous and assuming that they're not getting fired into.
It's not the Russ's problem if the Ion Accelerator is trash too.
It is the Russ's problem that Conscripts are literally more effective at killing tanks with their Lasguns than the Battle Cannon is.
Conscripts vs. Leman Russ: 200 shots, 70 hits, 10 wounds, 3 unsaved, average. I can bring it up and run a simulation too if we need further proof.
Russ vs. Leman Russ averages 1 wound, and only have something like a 10% chance of even doing three.
Okay. I'm very sorry. Some of your simulations have been pretty interesting, but this is now officially silly.
"Conscripts are better than russes at anti-tank! All you have to do is get all 50 right next to the tank unharmed! And also have off camera support characters dedicated to them whose points I'm not taking into account when I try to draw this comparison! Tanks are awful."
In reality, those conscripts probably wouldn't be able to get within 12" of the tank within the first turn, and possibly not within the second turn if the opponent has any idea what you're trying to do. Meanwhile, the tank has several turns of firing that your conscripts don't get, or get half the effectiveness you're showing, and that's still being generous and assuming that they're not getting fired into.
This is true. The conscript are unlikely to reach appropriate range intact. Well, maybe, if they go second, the enemy tank move up 7+", then they fire. They're more fragile than the tank, but they also have fewer natural counters. They're by no means efficient at tank killing [except for the Ghost Arks, but that's also besides the point], but if you line up 50 conscripts, you will get more wounds out of them than the Leman Russ.
But, before we get into that, the conscripts are 150+20+30=200 points with their supporting officer and commissar. The Tank is 132+22+8=162 points, by itself.
This also isn't the Leman Russ optimized to kill tanks.
But let's turn this around. Let's try finding a reason to bring the Leman Russ, and the variant and loadout we want for it.
I can't think of many situations when the tank would need to move up though. It's not a plausible situation. If anything, the tank would move in any direction but. It could even kite them pretty well, since it can fire at BS while moving (significantly faster than the conscripts at that).
Also, my math shows your conscript unit at 150 + 30 + 31. Unless you're taking something different than I expect. Company commander and commissar?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which, I think, is something else about the Russ that is getting overlooked here. They're surprisingly mobile. They're moving almost twice as fast as they could in previous editions and still fire (and at full BS). Outrunning infantry while remaining able to fire is definitely something to consider.
It's not the Russ's problem if the Ion Accelerator is trash too.
It is the Russ's problem that Conscripts are literally more effective at killing tanks with their Lasguns than the Battle Cannon is.
Well, if they can get within 12" range and can endure counterfire. Then they're also better than lascannons and everything else. But that is unlikely to happen, because unlike the Russ they will get blown away by small-arms fire before they get there.
Following your line of thinking, all weapons are trash. Because you are judging everything on their capability to churn out damage in a short period, and weapons that churn out high amounts of damage in a short period simply do not exist now. The game is currently about ability to weather fire and return fire over time.
daedalus wrote: I can't think of many situations when the tank would need to move up though. It's not a plausible situation. If anything, the tank would move in any direction but. It could even kite them pretty well, since it can fire at BS while moving (significantly faster than the conscripts at that).
Also, my math shows your conscript unit at 150 + 30 + 31. Unless you're taking something different than I expect. Company commander and commissar?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which, I think, is something else about the Russ that is getting overlooked here. They're surprisingly mobile. They're moving almost twice as fast as they could in previous editions and still fire (and at full BS). Outrunning infantry while remaining able to fire is definitely something to consider.
Platoon commander is 20, IIRC.
Anyway, a Leman Russ may have range, but other tanks don't necessarily do. Particularly the vehicles you care about killing, which are called upon to advance on your lines anyway.
Conscripts aren't good at killing tanks, at optimal range or otherwise. A Leman Russ battle cannon is worse at it, though.
What you really want are Lascannon HWT's and Devil Dogs, by the look of it. A Devil Dog is terrifying this edition: it get 1D3+1 shots at S8, AP-4, that do 2D6B1 damage when they hit at 12" and 1D6 a 24", on a 11 wound platform that moves 12" a turn. And it totals up to 128 points. Lascannon teams are slower and more fragile, but they're only 72 points for a group of 3.
What you really want are Lascannon HWT's and Devil Dogs, by the look of it. A Devil Dog is terrifying this edition: it get 1D3+1 shots at S8, AP-4, that do 2D6B1 damage when they hit at 12" and 1D6 a 24", on a 11 wound platform that moves 12" a turn. And it totals up to 128 points. Lascannon teams are slower and more fragile, but they're only 72 points for a group of 3.
I agree with this 100%. I'm rocking at least three LCHWS at 1500, and I'm definitely interested in running some Devil Dogs at some point, though I don't think that's ever going to be in the same list. I think I have either two or three hellhound chassis right now. Super excited to finally have a reason to magnetize those other weapons.
jaxor1983 wrote:He's using a platoon commander for this imaginary army.
Have you run a simulation for a battle cannon vs. something that is T6 or 7 with a 3+ or 4+ save? Also, how about at BS 3+ while rerolling 1's?
Yes on the first two. 3+ and Re-rolling 1's is mutually exclusive, because the TC can't order other TC's, but here:
(Wounds: Trials: Percentage) 10000 trials
Alcibiades wrote:
Well, if they can get within 12" range and can endure counterfire. Then they're also better than lascannons and everything else. But that is unlikely to happen, because unlike the Russ they will get blown away by small-arms fire before they get there.
Following your line of thinking, all weapons are trash. Because you are judging everything on their capability to churn out damage in a short period, and weapons that churn out high amounts of damage in a short period simply do not exist now. The game is currently about ability to weather fire and return fire over time.
Survivability is overrated, because it's reactive, not proactive. It's easy to invalidate and easy to ignore, compared to firepower which becomes disastrous if you ignore it and can only really be rendered useless if it's out of position, which is your prerogative, not the enemy's. The enemy has to act because of your firepower, while the toughness of your units doesn't force them to do anything on it's own.
But I'm not comparing it to weapons from last edition. I'm comparing it to weapons from this edition. I'm not judging it on how it can't kill a tank in 1 turn, I'm judging it on the fact that it does less damage per turn than other options. It doesn't return fire over time very well.
What the methodology behind these tests? You're referencing trials, so I'm assuming you're using some sort of random or pseudorandom numbers. Where are you sourcing them from, out of curiosity? Are you consuming new numbers each time or are you reusing the same random number set for each set of trials?
jaxor1983 wrote: It's pointless of bemoan the current index we have when we know Every major faction is going to have its own codex with regiment/legion/chapter/order/dynasty specific abilities and/or strategems. All of the comparisons between armies and units we currently know about will be completely different in a couple months (or whenever 'soon' is according to forgeworld). I don't know a single person, except maybe a sisters player, who is excited about the vanilla units and abilities they've been reading about in their collective indexes.
It's pointless to think about what future codex which for some armies might not be out for years(AOS has less books to release and isn't done yet...). We have what we have now and we need to look at how it works NOW not with some imaginary codex rules we don't know and which might even hit us with a nerfbat as well as give us toys. Who's to say russ doesn't get 50% price hike along with +1 to hit with some strategem available?
daedalus wrote: What the methodology behind these tests? You're referencing trials, so I'm assuming you're using some sort of random or pseudorandom numbers. Where are you sourcing them from, out of curiosity? Are you consuming new numbers each time or are you reusing the same random number set for each set of trials?
That was done with a python script.
I've done most of them so far with excel because it makes pretty graphs, but excel makes my computer cry and python is faster.
I model a shooting attack and record the number of wounds inflicted. Then, I have it do that a couple thousand times and total up the results.
I generate a new set of numbers every time, as well.
daedalus wrote: I can't think of many situations when the tank would need to move up though. It's not a plausible situation. If anything, the tank would move in any direction but. It could even kite them pretty well, since it can fire at BS while moving (significantly faster than the conscripts at that).
Also, my math shows your conscript unit at 150 + 30 + 31. Unless you're taking something different than I expect. Company commander and commissar?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Which, I think, is something else about the Russ that is getting overlooked here. They're surprisingly mobile. They're moving almost twice as fast as they could in previous editions and still fire (and at full BS). Outrunning infantry while remaining able to fire is definitely something to consider.
Platoon commander is 20, IIRC.
Anyway, a Leman Russ may have range, but other tanks don't necessarily do. Particularly the vehicles you care about killing, which are called upon to advance on your lines anyway.
Conscripts aren't good at killing tanks, at optimal range or otherwise. A Leman Russ battle cannon is worse at it, though.
What you really want are Lascannon HWT's and Devil Dogs, by the look of it. A Devil Dog is terrifying this edition: it get 1D3+1 shots at S8, AP-4, that do 2D6B1 damage when they hit at 12" and 1D6 a 24", on a 11 wound platform that moves 12" a turn. And it totals up to 128 points. Lascannon teams are slower and more fragile, but they're only 72 points for a group of 3.
S'cuse me, but where you getting the 1D3+1 shots from? All I can see is that it does D3 shots.
I've done most of them so far with excel because it makes pretty graphs, but excel makes my computer cry and python is faster.
I model a shooting attack and record the number of wounds inflicted. Then, I have it do that a couple thousand times and total up the results.
I generate a new set of numbers every time, as well.
It's an interesting idea. I know python has an R module, so you could probably build the visualization with that and render entirely without excel, if you cared enough about the graph to begin with anyway. I might try to set up something similar.
What's your OS? I ask because I'm wondering about the randomness issue. I ask because Windows RNG typically is remarkably bad at pulling off random properly, and it kicks in earlier than you'd think it does.
Well that's pretty good. With a lascannon and 2 plasma cannons, a bs3+ rerolling 1's should shut down a transport or kill a carnifex each turn.
Of course, if you've got the ability to reroll 1's (and a gakload of CP as IG should have) there's no reason to take a battle cannon over an executioner except for range.
Speaking of plasma-russes, I've noticed a small detail about them and the 'Emergency Plasma Vents'.
Basically, they will only activate if you fail a roll to hit of one for the plasma cannon sponsons.
The Executioner plasma cannon will simply do D6 mortal wounds on a roll of a 1 to hit.
While this can still be painful, it is nowhere nearly as bad as the 6 mortal wounds + permanently destroyed plasma cannons.
It's an interesting idea. I know python has an R module, so you could probably build the visualization with that and render entirely without excel, if you cared enough about the graph to begin with anyway. I might try to set up something similar.
What's your OS? I ask because I'm wondering about the randomness issue. I ask because Windows RNG typically is remarkably bad at pulling off random properly, and it kicks in earlier than you'd think it does.
Windows. I just have a crappy laptop. I have an even crappier one that runs Linux, but I'd probably melt it if I tried to do anything more complex than browse the internet.
Speaking of plasma-russes, I've noticed a small detail about them and the 'Emergency Plasma Vents'.
Basically, they will only activate if you fail a roll to hit of one for the plasma cannon sponsons.
The Executioner plasma cannon will simply do D6 mortal wounds on a roll of a 1 to hit.
While this can still be painful, it is nowhere nearly as bad as the 6 mortal wounds + permanently destroyed plasma cannons.
That's a good point - it makes the executioner turrets much less scary.
master of ordinance wrote: ...
Chimeras?
There was ONE chimera on the entire battlefield, and I assume it contained a command section.
Your 'Mech guard' army may or may not have done well, but that is not the point people are debating. People are looking at the damage output of our tanks, and finding them woefully lacking. And of certain units (like Ogryns) and finding them lacking for the cost.
The artillery? The Manticore CARRIED the Basilisk in terms of effectiveness.
That is what people are debating, not that one or two aspects are good, but the fact that the vast majority of the army (barring those bits people did not usually have) stink.
There were 3 Chimeras and they all had veterans in them. Maybe the problem is we are talking about different batreps.
I will take your word for it, but I only saw one Chimera and a pair of Hellhounds. That said I did just skip through most of it as I dont have two and a half hours to dedicate to a battlereport against a Necron player whom seemed to be trying to lose.
They can't really up the price of conscripts whithout making them cost the same as an infantry squad. Unless of course we're doing fractions of points now.
Blacksails wrote: They can't really up the price of conscripts whithout making them cost the same as an infantry squad. Unless of course we're doing fractions of points now.
They did it in Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition. Which is also the edition in which they decided to make Light Cavalry untouchable, and give all the popular/marysue (looking at you elves) armies cheap shooting units in their core slots. In a game which was based around the late medieval/early renaissance period.
And then they wondered why the game tanked.
Well that and they massively upped the number of models needed, to the point that 'elite' armies like Chaos Warriors started needing triple digits worth of figures.
HWTs are well priced for their firepower, but they're more than just fragile, they're made of glass. 6 wounds at T3 and a 5+ save won't last through turn 2 with even trivial firepower thrown at it. Cover barely helps.
Durability does matter. A HTW that fires for 1 turn is less useful than a Russ that fires for 4. A Russ in cover is an absolute bugger to kill.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: They can't really up the price of conscripts whithout making them cost the same as an infantry squad. Unless of course we're doing fractions of points now.
I think the only thing out of whack with conscripts is the efficiency of orders on them compared to normal squads. Changing the conscript max unit size to say 30 would solve most issues IMO.
My general policy for independent HWS is going to be to use them for mortars, or heavy bolters at the most. That way it's not a big loss when they die, and if they're mortars they can extend their lifespan by hiding out of LoS.
Expensive stuff is going to be embedded in an infantry squad so they can have 8 ablative wounds, or mounted on a vehicle.
MaxT wrote: I think the only thing out of whack with conscripts is the efficiency of orders on them compared to normal squads. Changing the conscript max unit size to say 30 would solve most issues IMO.
I could also see an added rule to the effect of: "Whenever this unit receives an order, roll a dice. On a 4+ the order is received and acted upon as normal; on a 1-3, the order is received but has no effect."
Reflects their poor discipline compared to regular troops, and keeps them from being reliable order buff targets.
Missile Launchers are pretty good general purpose weapons, but are less good at anti-big stuff than Lascannons. Also pretty bad against basic Marines.
Lascannons are good at shooting big stuff.
Autocannons are fairly general purpose, but are strictly worse than Missile Launchers against most targets. They are actually more points efficient than missile launchers against everything but the vehicles and Terminators, though.
Min maxing is a thing. Scions with plasmaguns (45+14), HWT with mortars (12+15). Add conscripts (150) and commisars (31) if your meta flows that way. Take as many as you want of each.
Waaargh wrote: Min maxing is a thing. Scions with plasmaguns (45+14), HWT with mortars (12+15). Add conscripts (150) and commisars (31) if your meta flows that way. Take as many as you want of each.
IG players of 8th - what do you feel are the weakness' of your faction?
What should an opposing player try to capitalize on if they want to win a battle against you?
Between Conscripts (with orders), Scions, HWT, and all the quality vehicles running around - it's hard to try and deal with everything.
If you manage to make it to melee - the IG just fall back, and shoot your face in.
Just trying to figure out what to be doing as an Ork player, when the IG can field more models and more firepower at the same points cost; can't outshoot them, and horde armies just get decimated by Manticore/Wyvern/HWT, and Conscripts (50-200 shots is no joke).
Even if you kill a lot of them, morale kill isn't an option since the Commissar turns it into 1d3 dead, at most.
Lack of snipers makes it that much harder to take out the crucial backline characters as well.
fe40k wrote: IG players of 8th - what do you feel are the weakness' of your faction?
What should an opposing player try to capitalize on if they want to win a battle against you?
Between Conscripts (with orders), Scions, HWT, and all the quality vehicles running around - it's hard to try and deal with everything.
If you manage to make it to melee - the IG just fall back, and shoot your face in.
Just trying to figure out what to be doing as an Ork player, when the IG can field more models and more firepower at the same points cost; can't outshoot them, and horde armies just get decimated by Manticore/Wyvern/HWT, and Conscripts (50-200 shots is no joke).
Even if you kill a lot of them, morale kill isn't an option since the Commissar turns it into 1d3 dead, at most.
Lack of snipers makes it that much harder to take out the crucial backline characters as well.
My brother is an ork player. Here is the advice I have given him:
You have no other option but to rush. IG excel at range & our artillery decimates. The faster you get into melee, the better.
If your opponent is using tanks he will be wasting most of his points on them. Bring some cheap transports/warbuggies etc & just charge & smash into them. If they have a screen of conscripts, just use weird boy jump & shoot open a pocket to get your vehicles through. They will be forced to keep falling back, unable to shoot. Meanwhile the rest of your boyz advance & tear them apart.
If he has mostly infantry you need to think of your opponent like an M&M. Hard outer shell, soft inside. If you break through their initial conscript outer line you can push in & wipe out HWT's etc. How? Use several weird boyz that teleport in lots of shootas etc. Use splitfire, choose your targets wisely & you will catch many out of cover meaning you will likely kill them. Your remaining boyz need to be close behind ready to charge shortly after.
Pure infantry armies don't seem to be easy to build anymore given the lack of infantry platoons and limited troop choices with battleforged armies. Platoon commanders being an elite choice doesn't help matters either.
Pseudomonas wrote: Pure infantry armies don't seem to be easy to build anymore given the lack of infantry platoons and limited troop choices with battleforged armies. Platoon commanders being an elite choice doesn't help matters either.
If the rumors are true, we'll be seeing changes this weekend in the FAQ. I expect we will see a limit or some sort of restriction on company commanders & instead platoon commanders will become HQ choices.
I got about 50-60 pewter karskins all unpainted lying around.
So ya'll telling me they 100% worth painting up? Because Their stats look hella good and they seem to be able to bring a lot of firepower to the table, especially for deepstrike plama force or dropping out a valk, moving up and just removing from existence a big thing eith 4 meltaguns.
Please tell me i can finally make a full karskin army and be viable.
If the rumors are true, we'll be seeing changes this weekend in the FAQ. I expect we will see a limit or some sort of restriction on company commanders & instead platoon commanders will become HQ choices.
I hope so. Other options in the 'codex can be bought in 'platoons' so it is more than sensible to allow infantry squads to be bought in the same manner, even if the command elements are bought separately.
I am also a bit annoyed that veterans no longer have a carapace option.
vipoid wrote: I can see GW putting a restriction on Company Commanders, but I highly doubt they'd make Platoon Commanders into HQs.
They could just as easily make them a troops choice and tie them to infantry squads, like they have been since 2nd ed (at least to some degree)
They could, but I doubt it.
Regardless, the point I was making was that I can see them limiting the number of Company Commanders we can take, but I also don't see them giving us a replacement HQ.
drunken0elf wrote: I got about 50-60 pewter karskins all unpainted lying around.
So ya'll telling me they 100% worth painting up? Because Their stats look hella good and they seem to be able to bring a lot of firepower to the table, especially for deepstrike plama force or dropping out a valk, moving up and just removing from existence a big thing eith 4 meltaguns.
Please tell me i can finally make a full karskin army and be viable.
Yeah, Scions are troops now, so you can have an army of stormtroopers.
The thing is though is that as they have a specific keyword, abilities that affect guardsmen may not work on them.
A company commander can't issue orders to them, for example. Only a Prime can.
You can still use commissars though, since they affect all Astra Militarum keyword units, which Scions do have.
drunken0elf wrote: I got about 50-60 pewter karskins all unpainted lying around.
So ya'll telling me they 100% worth painting up? Because Their stats look hella good and they seem to be able to bring a lot of firepower to the table, especially for deepstrike plama force or dropping out a valk, moving up and just removing from existence a big thing eith 4 meltaguns.
Please tell me i can finally make a full karskin army and be viable.
Yeah, Scions are troops now, so you can have an army of stormtroopers.
The thing is though is that as they have a specific keyword, abilities that affect guardsmen may not work on them.
A company commander can't issue orders to them, for example. Only a Prime can.
You can still use commissars though, since they affect all Astra Militarum keyword units, which Scions do have.
The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.
Lord Castellan Creed, however, would not be able to use his voice of command ability on them because he is Cadian.
If I am correct about all this, then the WAAC plasma Scion Command Squad spam is even better with 10 point less Company Commanders over Tempestor Primes.
drunken0elf wrote: I got about 50-60 pewter karskins all unpainted lying around.
So ya'll telling me they 100% worth painting up? Because Their stats look hella good and they seem to be able to bring a lot of firepower to the table, especially for deepstrike plama force or dropping out a valk, moving up and just removing from existence a big thing eith 4 meltaguns.
Please tell me i can finally make a full karskin army and be viable.
Yeah, Scions are troops now, so you can have an army of stormtroopers. The thing is though is that as they have a specific keyword, abilities that affect guardsmen may not work on them. A company commander can't issue orders to them, for example. Only a Prime can. You can still use commissars though, since they affect all Astra Militarum keyword units, which Scions do have.
The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.
No you can't. It explicitly states that you can't make a <regiment> Militarum Tempestus. You have to use a Prime to give Scions orders. There is no work around.
jaxor1983 wrote: The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.
There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.
jaxor1983 wrote: The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.
There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.
Is there a restriction that let's you replace your regiment's name with "Militarum Auxillia" (and thus letting you order Ogryns and Ratlings?)
jaxor1983 wrote: The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.
There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.
Is there a restriction that let's you replace your regiment's name with "Militarum Auxillia" (and thus letting you order Ogryns and Ratlings?)
Huh, there isn't actually.
Well, that's something that needs to be FAQ'd
Regardless, the point I was making was that I can see them limiting the number of Company Commanders we can take, but I also don't see them giving us a replacement HQ.
I would argue that one is needed though, finding the 4-6 HQ choices required for average sized games is hard enough as it is and if Company commanders are restricted that will leave very few choices without resorting to special characters.
Regardless, the point I was making was that I can see them limiting the number of Company Commanders we can take, but I also don't see them giving us a replacement HQ.
I would argue that one is needed though, finding the 4-6 HQ choices required for average sized games is hard enough as it is and if Company commanders are restricted that will leave very few choices without resorting to special characters.
I never said it wasn't needed. I just don't see GW lifting a finger to give us one.
jaxor1983 wrote: The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.
There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.
Is there a restriction that let's you replace your regiment's name with "Militarum Auxillia" (and thus letting you order Ogryns and Ratlings?)
Huh, there isn't actually.
Well, that's something that needs to be FAQ'd
Well, technically the Militarum Auxillia isn't a regiment, it is a subdivision of the Astra Militarum. As it isn't a regiment, can it be a regimental keyword? The rules do state that you can replace the <Regiment> keyword with "the name of your chosen regiment".
I guess putting it in the FAQs is the simplest way to avoid confusion.
jaxor1983 wrote: The Tempestor Prime's Voice of Command ability is the same as a Company Commander's. Except that, unlike a Company Commander, his regiment is limited to Militarum Tempestus. So it stands to reason that you can use a Company Commander with Militarum Tempestus as his regiment and then he can use voice of command on Militarum Tempestus.
There is a specific restriction that you can't use "Militarum Tempestus" to replace the <Regiment> faction keyword.
Is there a restriction that let's you replace your regiment's name with "Militarum Auxillia" (and thus letting you order Ogryns and Ratlings?)
Huh, there isn't actually.
Well, that's something that needs to be FAQ'd
Well, technically the Militarum Auxillia isn't a regiment, it is a subdivision of the Astra Militarum. As it isn't a regiment, can it be a regimental keyword? The rules do state that you can replace the <Regiment> keyword with "the name of your chosen regiment".
I guess putting it in the FAQs is the simplest way to avoid confusion.
It goes in the same place as where the regiment is usually listed though, so it could be interpreted as a regiment.
It is something they will have to FAQ.
To continue the great "is the Battle Cannon crap or not?" debate, I decided to compare it to a bunch of Tau weapons, since they're supposedly the kings of superweapons. It's a generalist weapon, but I'm just going to compare it to anti-tank capability.(average wounds per shot)
Against another Leman Russ (T8 3+)
IG Battle Cannon 1.57
Pulse Driver Cannon 1.95
Pulse Blastcannon (long range) 0.67
Pulse Blastcannon (medium range) 2.69
Pulse Blastcannon (short range) 4.02
Hammerhead Railgun 1.80
Hammerhead Ion Cannon (standard) 0.59
Hammerhead Ion Cannon (overcharge) 1.35
Heavy Rail Rifle 1.92
High-Yield Missile Pods (2) 1.32
Fusion Blaster (not in melta range) 0.88
Fusion Blaster (in melta range) 1.125
Riptide Ion Accelerator (standard) 0.41
Riptide Ion Accelerator (overcharge) 1.45
Riptide Ion Accelerator (nova charge) 2.91
Make of that what you will.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (well the obvious conclusion is that even the most fearsome weapons in the game don't do that much against a Leman Russ!)
Why do people think this and that need FAQ just because you dont agree with the text in the rule book instead of reading the rules and maybe think yeah that was designed that way.
I see no reason why the Ratling and Ogryns cant receive orders needs FAQ.
They cant receive order period.
The keyword system is there for a reason. And conscripts getting a point increase on day one because some one knows some one that knows someone that is saying now that it wont happen on day one.
Alcibiades wrote: To continue the great "is the Battle Cannon crap or not?" debate, I decided to compare it to a bunch of Tau weapons, since they're supposedly the kings of superweapons. It's a generalist weapon, but I'm just going to compare it to anti-tank capability.(average wounds per shot)
Against another Leman Russ (T8 3+)
IG Battle Cannon 1.57
Pulse Driver Cannon 1.95
Pulse Blastcannon (long range) 0.67
Pulse Blastcannon (medium range) 2.69
Pulse Blastcannon (short range) 4.02
Hammerhead Railgun 1.80
Hammerhead Ion Cannon (standard) 0.59
Hammerhead Ion Cannon (overcharge) 1.35
Heavy Rail Rifle 1.92
High-Yield Missile Pods (2) 1.32
Fusion Blaster (not in melta range) 0.88
Fusion Blaster (in melta range) 1.125
Riptide Ion Accelerator (standard) 0.41
Riptide Ion Accelerator (overcharge) 1.45
Riptide Ion Accelerator (nova charge) 2.91
Make of that what you will.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (well the obvious conclusion is that even the most fearsome weapons in the game don't do that much against a Leman Russ!)
I mean, sure, I guess. As I said, that just means the Tau big guns also got hit with the sledgehammer of impotency.
I mean seriously, is averaging 1.5 wounds a turn is worth 162 points? 6x Lascannons averages almost 6 wounds a turn!
While the 6x Lascannons are a lot more fragile, a 162 point indestructible brick is basically worthless.
As I said before resiliency is overrated. Your ability to withstand fire only becomes relevant if the enemy needs to kill you. If your invincible but toothless brick doesn't need to die, then it's invincibility isn't doing anything.
I mean, sure, I guess. As I said, that just means the Tau big guns also got hit with the sledgehammer of impotency.
What it means is that nothing in the game turns out high volumes of damage quickly. Every gun is like this, in every faction.
Eldar Heavy Wraithcannon against LR: 3.14
This isn't true, though. There are plenty of things that churn out damage at an alarming rate.
The aforementioned 6x Lascannons. Or a squad of Dominions with Meltaguns.
Hell, even the Leman Russ Annihilator, and the Vanquisher, manage to at least perform as advertised. A Vanquisher or Annihilator with Multimeltas is worse than a pair of Devil Dogs or a squad of Dominions in a Multimelta Immolator, but it's not drastically worse and isn't an utter failure at everything.
The Vanquisher cannon is a big meltagun. We've got 3x Multimeltas and a Lascannon on a 220 point platform, versus 240 for 2+2D3 Multimeltas [2 Devil Dogs] or 6 BS3+ Meltaguns with Scout [Dominions].
As far as I can see, 8th is an infantry-based game. Tanks (and this goes for the big Tau suits as well) are there to provide fire support, serve as line-breakers and shields for the infantry, and roll on top of objectives and sit there, denying them to the enemy unless the latter wants to dedicate series firepower to taking it out.
They're really durable -- as you can see, a Tau player has to devote 7-8 broadsides to it (assuming no markerlight support, which reduces it to 5-6 or so -- and that's almost 1000 points by the way). The old strategy of plunking melta down and blowing up a tank, for instance, does not work anymore. You need to dedicate firepower to the task, probably over a couple of turns.
Alcibiades wrote: As far as I can see, 8th is an infantry-based game. Tanks (and this goes for the big Tau suits as well) are there to provide fire support, serve as line-breakers and shields for the infantry, and roll on top of objectives and sit there, denying them to the enemy unless the latter wants to dedicate series firepower to taking it out.
They're really durable -- as you can see, a Tau player has to devote 7-8 broadsides to it (assuming no markerlight support, which reduces it to 5-6 or so -- and that's almost 1000 points by the way). The old strategy of plunking melta down and blowing up a tank, for instance, does not work anymore. You need to dedicate firepower to the task, probably over a couple of turns.
That's the problem. They're a total failure at providing fire support when infantry can put out better fire support, they're terrible linebreakers because they can't, well, break a line [not to mention the board is way too small for anything like linebreaker to be meaningful], they're terrible shields for infantry, and they can't out-capture an objective. I thought of that, but it doesn't work in practice, because the tank is about a inch and a half too short.
Being durable doesn't matter if you have no teeth, and nobody need to waste firepower killing you.
The "aggro factor" is a big part of why I think the Punisher might end up being the best LRBT variant, specifically on a Tank Commander. A Dakka Russ rolling right up into your opponent's face and dishing out what essentially amounts to 29 heavy bolter shots at BS3+ is just scary enough that it might bait your opponent into targeting it. And if they're light on AT due to how 8th's meta seems to be infantry-heavy, you might be able to cause them problems by taking out the AT they do have early.
Would heavy flamers be worth the cost as secondaries?
On the one hand, your dakka Russ is planning to get point-blank with the enemy anyway and those flamers would give it a mean overwatch when combined with the Punisher cannon. They would also play well with the mobility, because they don't roll to hit and the Punisher cannon is ignoring the -1 penalty for moving already.
On the other hand, they cost just over twice as much as the heavy bolters do and don't really benefit from the TC's ballistic skill, so the TC would only benefit the Punisher in that situation (though with 20 shots that's quite a benefit). Of course, heavy flamers could be taken on a non-TC Russ. That would be slightly cheaper than a TC+HB Russ, the flamers wouldn't care because they don't roll to hit, so you'd only be losing the 3+ on the Punisher for a 4+. Maybe a TC+Punisher/HB Russ, and a standard Punisher/Flamer buddy for him to give orders to?
ross-128 wrote: The "aggro factor" is a big part of why I think the Punisher might end up being the best LRBT variant, specifically on a Tank Commander. A Dakka Russ rolling right up into your opponent's face and dishing out what essentially amounts to 29 heavy bolter shots at BS3+ is just scary enough that it might bait your opponent into targeting it. And if they're light on AT due to how 8th's meta seems to be infantry-heavy, you might be able to cause them problems by taking out the AT they do have early.
Would heavy flamers be worth the cost as secondaries?
On the one hand, your dakka Russ is planning to get point-blank with the enemy anyway and those flamers would give it a mean overwatch when combined with the Punisher cannon. They would also play well with the mobility, because they don't roll to hit and the Punisher cannon is ignoring the -1 penalty for moving already.
On the other hand, they cost just over twice as much as the heavy bolters do and don't really benefit from the TC's ballistic skill, so the TC would only benefit the Punisher in that situation (though with 20 shots that's quite a benefit). Of course, heavy flamers could be taken on a non-TC Russ. That would be slightly cheaper than a TC+HB Russ, the flamers wouldn't care because they don't roll to hit, so you'd only be losing the 3+ on the Punisher for a 4+. Maybe a TC+Punisher/HB Russ, and a standard Punisher/Flamer buddy for him to give orders to?
My 2c on Flamers? No. If it's trying to be a fire magnet, keep it cheap. Heavy Flamers don't add that much to it, anyway, since Hellhound Inferno Cannons are significantly better. They've got 16" range, 2 damage, and +1 strength. The Devil Dogs aren't that much more amazing than a Leman Russ Vanquisher or Annihilator, but the Inferno Cannons blow away the Russ Heavy Flamer options. I'm thinking of putting "2 Hellhounds" in the #3 slot of my requisition queue.
In terms of Russ vs. Russ comparisons:
Vanquisher: If it's what you've got, go for it. It works as advertised, and is something the enemy is going to want gone. Use Multimelta sponsons. 132 + 25 + 20 + 20 + 20 = 217
Battle Tank: Like the overcharged Executioner, but worse.
Executioner: Go big, or go home. Also, go big at your own risk. Make sure it has a Tank Commander friend and isn't a Tank Commander in and of itself so it can receive Tank Orders to not blow up. Use Plasma Cannon sponsons. 132 + 20 + 20 + 15 +15 = 202
Demolisher: If it's the only thing you've got, okay. I would recommend a Vanquisher first, because it nets you only slightly worse performance for much less points. Use Multimelta sponsons, and go after tanks. 132 + 40 + 20 + 20 + 20 = 232
Eradicator: Like the Battle Tank, but much worse.
Exterminator: Like the Battle Tank, but worse.
Punisher: Take it if you want it. Use Heavy Bolters, keep it cheap. 132 + 20 + 8 + 8 + 8 = 176, pretty decent
Annihilator: Probably like the Vanquisher, but better. Use Multimelta sponsons.
Conqueror: Probably like the Battle Tank, but worse.
Punisher and Vanquisher are good candidates for a Tank Commander, and at least can become a threatening force. A Vanquisher Tank Commander does manage to claw its way up to being better than the Devil Dogs, and a Punisher Tank Commander is good and cheap. A Tank Commander needs a friend for maximum efficiency, otherwise part of his 35 points are going to waste, and you have to figure out what his friend is going to be. Executioner, Vanquisher, and Punisher are really your choices, and all can benefit.
I noticed that you matched all your loadouts for similar roles. I am really starting to think that this is a 7th edition mindset. There really is no problem putting bolters on any variant, or a lascannon on a punisher for instance. Spreading weapons around your army means that it is harder for the enemy to focus down the thing most dangerous to them, and lets you fire your AT guns one at a time instead of guessing how many shots a target needs with split fire.
I always find Russ gun options one of the most interesting parts of a new Guard codex, and have gone through many iterations over the years. I think that mixed loadouts are going to be overlooked because they were never something that people considered, yet are now really powerful. The lascannon/bolter is seeming really nice right now. If you have a LRBT with that loadout (pretty much the most classic Russ you can get) then it is a really balanced unit that can deal with anything.
I had the same clever idea. Thinking instead of using a pair of command squads, though it's far less efficient.
) that has been rendered utterly obsolete overnight.
