Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I will NEVER argue intent again. I was so sure that they would rule against this. Its amusing that the FAQ says you wont get much use out of them if you do this....swap a few lasgun shots for a str 4 ordinance next turn? Bring an Autarch (or 2?) for easy reserves checks. I dont like it, no sir....and my main army is eldar.

The FAQ on Swooping hawks is such a bad call....someone will abuse this like crazy.

-4to5 possible units that will NEVER give up kill points if you go second
-4 large blasts str 4 ap 5 that you CANNOT screen against (debateable)..and only deviate d6, per turn, unstoppable.
-3 units that can objective grab last turn...again, cannot be stopped short of bad luck.

...all this from 4 units that 'technically' you dont even have to buy the models for to play...since they'll never be on the table.


Guaranteed to piss of somebody.

Just over 1000 pts of an army template that should make any horde player scream....

HQ
Baharroth (doesnt join any hawk unit, granting another grenade pack attack)
Autarch with wings (starts in reserves for +1 reserves on all hawks)

ELITE

Whatever you like

TROOPS

Whatever you like

FAST
5xHawk with Exarch/Skyleap
5xHawk with Exarch/Skyleap
5xHawk with Exarch/Skyleap

HEAVY
Prism (with holofeild? SS?)
Prism (with holofeild? SS?)
Prism (with holofeild? SS?)

7 large blasts a turn...and hard as heck to stop...annoying. Oh well, if you can't beat em, join em.

You should take jetbikes for troops. This army has 0 resilience in contact, anything walking is an anchor you dont need and something for your opponents to feast upon/vent frustration against.

If you merely want to spam blasts take infantry troops (against advice) and replace one or more Fire Prisms with a Shadow Weaver battery.

Hawks are (were) the worst FA choice one could take. Yo-yo Hawks makes them interesting, but still not good.

Vypers are still better.

That army is kinda funny. I will have to try it just to see an opponent freak out.

Darrian

Deadshane1 wrote:

-3 units that can objective grab last turn...again, cannot be stopped short of bad luck.



Guaranteed to piss of somebody.

Only TROOPS can grab objectives.
HAwks are Fast Attack.

3x hawk 3x Prism doesnt leave a lot for troop choises so if the enemy concentrates fire on your troops you can't win it.

Deadshane1 wrote:I will NEVER argue intent again. I was so sure that they would rule against this. Its amusing that the FAQ says you wont get much use out of them if you do this....swap a few lasgun shots for a str 4 ordinance next turn? Bring an Autarch (or 2?) for easy reserves checks. I dont like it, no sir....and my main army is eldar.

The FAQ on Swooping hawks is such a bad call....someone will abuse this like crazy.

-4to5 possible units that will NEVER give up kill points if you go second
-4 large blasts str 4 ap 5 that you CANNOT screen against (debateable)..and only deviate d6, per turn, unstoppable.
-3 units that can objective grab last turn...again, cannot be stopped short of bad luck.

...all this from 4 units that 'technically' you dont even have to buy the models for to play...since they'll never be on the table.


Guaranteed to piss of somebody.

I'm pretty sure this just plain scatters 2d6" just like any other ordnance blast. Regardless of special rules, it's a blast so now it follows the new rules, same as Demolition charges.

The hawks could contest an objective last turn, though. Negates having your troops on an objective piece, which can swing the game pretty well.

Yes, only troops can claim objectives, but ANY unit can contest objectives. That is where the swooping hawks drop in and stop your troops from claiming any objectives.

Spellbound wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:I will NEVER argue intent again. I was so sure that they would rule against this. Its amusing that the FAQ says you wont get much use out of them if you do this....swap a few lasgun shots for a str 4 ordinance next turn? Bring an Autarch (or 2?) for easy reserves checks. I dont like it, no sir....and my main army is eldar.

The FAQ on Swooping hawks is such a bad call....someone will abuse this like crazy.

-4to5 possible units that will NEVER give up kill points if you go second
-4 large blasts str 4 ap 5 that you CANNOT screen against (debateable)..and only deviate d6, per turn, unstoppable.
-3 units that can objective grab last turn...again, cannot be stopped short of bad luck.

...all this from 4 units that 'technically' you dont even have to buy the models for to play...since they'll never be on the table.


Guaranteed to piss of somebody.

I'm pretty sure this just plain scatters 2d6" just like any other ordnance blast. Regardless of special rules, it's a blast so now it follows the new rules, same as Demolition charges.

You'd be wrong then. The 'grenade pack' wargear entry specifically tells when/how this attack is rendered. Ballistic skill isnt applied to the scatter, and it only scatters a d6

Wow. I thought we would have threads like this a couple weeks ago when they were first FAQed according to RaW. I am surprised it took this long for this thread to appear.

I am not convinced that rubber hawks will be good or bad in 5th edition.

in 4th edition, big whoop. We have been playing them as rubber hawks for awhile now and after the initial knee-jerk reactions everyone had, it wasn't nearly as bad as many people whined about. Even IG armies weren't that impressed. (disclaimer, only 2 units were ever fielded at once though, I am sure IG would have felt different with baharoth and another unit)

But 4th edition is over now. Onwards and upwards as they say...

The new way deepstrike works in 5th edition is certainly going to put atleast a minor setback on the rubber hawk tactic.

As far as vypers being better than hawks? IMO, not a chance. Hawks are eldar versions of whirlwinds, except that the opponent doesn't get a chance to shoot at them if they trampoline off of the table.

I need to read up more on the 5th ed rules before I can comment further. But from cursory inspection, they don't seem to change drastically. A lot will depend on how the turn structure is worded in 5th edition. Again, I need to check it out.

And finally, sorry that it took this topic to learn that arguing intent is a most illogical thing to base an argument off of. I am not trying to be snarky at all, just amazed how people see this as a valid debate standpoint.

(note: I base a lot of how I play the game off of my interpretation of intent as well, but I don't bring intent into a rules debate)

Welcome back to posting Hellfury. Since Stelek is banned, I expect we will see more of your posts?

Darrian

Stelek banned, when?

He was posting today.

Deadshane1 wrote:

You'd be wrong then. The 'grenade pack' wargear entry specifically tells when/how this attack is rendered. Ballistic skill isnt applied to the scatter, and it only scatters a d6

So they get the upgraded blasts with no partials from 5th, without the new drawbacks? I'm afraid that royally sucks sir.

Oh, I just read it. Screw that, it's labelled as a large blast weapon, it scatters in the new edition. Literature also says "do not roll for scatter for the Barbed Strangler" upteen times and it's now changed, as well.

It's a large blast weapon, its rules have changed in the new edition as far as I'm concerned. New edition says "blasts do x" and it's going to need more than a special rule that was made in a previous edition to convince me otherwise.

Why? Special rules from codices have always trumped the main rulebook.

agreed i think the special rule is the king in this debate

I think the swooping hawk exarch is a 5 BS anyway, so on average if you rolled 2d6 scatter minus BS it would be even better than 1d6...

Spellbound wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:

You'd be wrong then. The 'grenade pack' wargear entry specifically tells when/how this attack is rendered. Ballistic skill isnt applied to the scatter, and it only scatters a d6

So they get the upgraded blasts with no partials from 5th, without the new drawbacks? I'm afraid that royally sucks sir.

Oh, I just read it. Screw that, it's labelled as a large blast weapon, it scatters in the new edition. Literature also says "do not roll for scatter for the Barbed Strangler" upteen times and it's now changed, as well.

It's a large blast weapon, its rules have changed in the new edition as far as I'm concerned. New edition says "blasts do x" and it's going to need more than a special rule that was made in a previous edition to convince me otherwise.

avantgarde wrote:Special rules from codices have always trumped the main rulebook.

...and they continue to do so.

The 40K 5th ed rules states (page 30):


The latest eldar codex states (page 35):


Codex rules will change in the new edition if either of the following occur:

It gets modified in a FAQ

It gets a new updated codex

For example, there is nothing in the 5th ed tyranid FAQ that states barbed stranglers have changed, as you have posited.
Thus, barbed stranglers continue to work as it is written in the latest tyranid codex.

Feel free to play it however you like of course, but the rules do not agree with your stance.

The fact that the hawk blast doesn't partial anymore will help them out a lot. I think if you took Deadsane1's initial list and put in as many 3 jetbikes (with one cannon) squads as you could, you could make a really rough list. The bike squads would only cost 76 (I think) points each so they would be cheep. You could then mostly have them hang back and move, shoot, move (or not) with the cannons. That or you could just have them speed around in the back of your army till the last turn sucking up long range shooting with their 3+ cover saves till its time to speed for last turn objective grabbing.

Autarch w/ wings and fusion Blaster
Baharroth
7x Fire Dragons in a Serpent w/ SC
6x 3 Jetbikes with 1 cannon
3x 5 Hawks w/ Exarch w/ Skyleap
3x Fire Prisms w/ Holo-Field and SC

1844 points.....

The rules for the grenade pack just say it uses the large blast, and it only rolls 1 D6.

Tyranid codex states the strangler fired using the normal BS, but uses the large blast marker.

Both follow their own rules because it is a special weapon only found in their respected codexs.

I also find it funny that I was talking about this exact same tactic and people made fun of it... now everyone wants to talk about it because of GW??? What's up with that...

I love that they no longer have to roll the 2+ on the sixth turn.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Vypers are still better.

How do you figure that John?

To get a cover save, they have to give up firing their gun. To fire their gun, they have to give up their cover save. If they're in a Squadron they die on immobilisations, and wrecked, and they get +1 to the damage chart for being open topped.

Vypers don't see to do anything in this edition, unless they sit still in cover and shoot, which is so fluffy.

BYE

Vypers are faster and cheaper for the same job of contestig. They can carry a S6 AP2 gun which is actually useful in nearly any situation.

Explain how a viper that moves 24" a turn is faster than a unit that deepstrikes anywhere onto the table. Why would you give them a starcannon in 5th when a scatterlaser is better? VoF>AP

The minimum Skyleap squad is 105+12+15 = 132 pts. The minimum Starcannon Vyper is 45+25 = 70 pts -- half the cost.

As for speed, the Vyper is always on the board -- there's no risk of not getting Deep Strike when you need it.

If you're only using the Vyper to contest, then the gun doesn't matter unless you have a Sv2+ model. AP2 vs Sv2+ >> VOF.

Saying a Vyper is better than Hawks is like saying a Whirlpool Washer and Dryer set is better than a Riding LawnMower....it doenst make any sense.

A Starcannon Vyper might be half the cost of a minimum skyleap squad, but the skyleap squad also generally wont be destroyed by a single lascannon shot, ramming tanks, or even a single lucky bolter shot.

I have to say that I was pretty shocked when they ruled the way they did regarding this issue. And the comment included along with the ruling makes me still think they may not know exactly why people want to use the tactic in the first place (the grenade pack rule).


But I do have to say that in 5th edition, Deep Striking is much more dangerous. Obviously Hawks can land anywhere on the table to drop their bombs before rubber-banding back into the sky, but even so a really bad scatter roll even in an open part of the table can still send the unit into difficult terrain (where the models have to take a dangerous terrain test) or even impassable terrain (where the unit would have to roll on the mishap table).

yakface wrote:
I have to say that I was pretty shocked when they ruled the way they did regarding this issue. And the comment included along with the ruling makes me still think they may not know exactly why people want to use the tactic in the first place (the grenade pack rule).


But I do have to say that in 5th edition, Deep Striking is much more dangerous. Obviously Hawks can land anywhere on the table to drop their bombs before rubber-banding back into the sky, but even so a really bad scatter roll even in an open part of the table can still send the unit into difficult terrain (where the models have to take a dangerous terrain test) or even impassable terrain (where the unit would have to roll on the mishap table).

actualy it gets worse the more units are deep striking as all models (friend or foe) will cause a mishap roll so you have a bit of open ground you deep strike into and roll a hit ...you've got 3 more unit to deep strike but that area is now not a good idea so where next? this because all deep strikes happen at the start of the turn so all the units must fit on the table be for they jump back into the sky.
And any one that does want to stop this with guard? take 2 inquisitors (daemon hunts)(HQ and elite) with 2 mystics and you can shoot at them with a unit within 12 of inquistors every time they deep strike with in 4D6" (if both are in range both can shoot)
friend once took out a monolith this way ... (works very well agains dark eldar)

@Johnhwangdd, Objective grabbing only matters from turn 5 on. Reserves come on automatically on turn 5+ so there is no chance of the swoopinghawks not getting deepstrike when I need it.

I will happily trade the deepstrike mishaps for the protection from being shot/assaulted every turn. Swooping Hawks are not very resilient and with 5th ed, they are much harder to hide/protect on the table