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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Other than making no logical sense, why would it be 'far too good'?

You have that backwards. Tanks holding ground makes only a limited amount of sense from a realism standpoint. Sure, a tank could hold a road crossing or a town square. But a tower block? An entrance to a bunker? An ancient macguffin? Etc. Few battles in history have been won by armored vehicles acting alone without infantry support

Feel free to scoff at this, but verisimilitude is not just a winning word in Scrabble. It's also a necessity for 40k. Sure, this is a game of laser swords and cyberwitches. But it's also a game of humans and of those humans engaging in warfare with all the trappings of real history. If you throw every real world precedent away as being unimportant in a science fantasy wargame, you might as well be playing chess.

EDIT: Also, this being 6E, one could easily fit in an allied mechanized infantry platoon or a Space Marine strike element to go with the armored company's steel hammer. A sniper scout squad, a tactical squad in a drop pod and, say, a librarian would give you a very nice synergistic force to help shore up the AC's weaknesses.

I get that Aggy, but this is a list designed to let you field a 'tank army' that basically ignores one of the chief aspects of the game. It'd be no different to an Eldar army that allowed nothing but FA choices but then went "Whoops! Forgot about them Troops! Ah well, we'll call it a 'handicap' and leave it at that!" Part of the problem with the Armoured Battlegroup list is that it shortened the list of what your opponent could do to you. Suddenly he was facing a wall of AV14, so anything S8 and below was cut out of the equation. Add into that the Veteran Skill that allowed you to fire twice once per game, and you could have any army that would level 16-20 pie-plates on you on Turn 1. It was an amazing Alpha Strike army, so the 'no scoring' was a balance. That and they couldn't fight in HTH, and HTH was the end of them. Taking Armoured Fist Squads actually made the army more dangerous, as the squishy humans could be used as a buffer, and they were heavy weapons in places that tanks couldn't get to.

That's not the case in 6th Ed. Hull Points make everything weaker. The AF Squads can't make blob squads with hidden power weapons. Krak Missiles can now contribute to the game removing a Hull Point on every 6, and the tanks can't all fire twice with the Vet Skills. And the answer to their non-scoring is just "take something other than tanks". Why am I playing a tank army if I have to take not-tanks in order to win with it?

 Peregrine wrote:
Balance, mostly. Otherwise it's too easy to just take a maximum-firepower list without making any sacrifices. That's been GW's approach for 5th and 6th: troops are important, so you have to choose between the big guns and scoring units. Making all troop tanks scoring would completely negate that, so instead you get a choice between an all-tank army that has trouble scoring objectives, or a more balanced list that bring scoring units but also more and better tanks than a codex army can.

Which begs the question of why play a tank army at all if you can't actually play a tank army and expect to win objective games?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Balance, mostly. Otherwise it's too easy to just take a maximum-firepower list without making any sacrifices. That's been GW's approach for 5th and 6th: troops are important, so you have to choose between the big guns and scoring units. Making all troop tanks scoring would completely negate that, so instead you get a choice between an all-tank army that has trouble scoring objectives, or a more balanced list that bring scoring units but also more and better tanks than a codex army can.

Which begs the question of why play a tank army at all if you can't actually play a tank army and expect to win objective games?

Because even if you play less than a pure tank army and include scoring units in Chimeras you're still playing with more tanks than a standard codex army can bring, and your tanks get various special abilities that the codex ones can only dream of.

 Peregrine wrote:
Because even if you play less than a pure tank army and include scoring units in Chimeras you're still playing with more tanks than a standard codex army can bring, and your tanks get various special abilities that the codex ones can only dream of.

Not that much more, and certainly not that much more than the Codex as it exists these days. Back in the day a Guard army could bring 3 Russes. At 2000 points you could bring 10 Russes in an Armoured Battlegroup. It was a major difference. Now the standard Guard list can field 9 Russes as HS slots.



On a side note, did they amend the Macharius/Malcador rules so that they were, y'know, worth taking? I love my Macharius Company - they're lovely models, especially the Vulcan Mega-Bolter one - but damn if they aren't a colossal waste of points. Malcador's doubly so.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Because even if you play less than a pure tank army and include scoring units in Chimeras you're still playing with more tanks than a standard codex army can bring, and your tanks get various special abilities that the codex ones can only dream of.

Not that much more, and certainly not that much more than the Codex as it exists these days. Back in the day a Guard army could bring 3 Russes. At 2000 points you could bring 10 Russes in an Armoured Battlegroup. It was a major difference. Now the standard Guard list can field 9 Russes as HS slots.

But only as squadrons, which is a big drawback. Add in competition with other heavy support options and the theoretical 9-LR list is pretty much never seen in a real game. But with an armored company list you can take several independent Leman Russes, give them orders from a company command tank, and still have heavy support slots free for aircraft/artillery tanks/Hydras/etc. Even if the number of Leman Russ models on the table isn't much different it's still a list that plays very differently from a codex:IG army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
On a side note, did they amend the Macharius/Malcador rules so that they were, y'know, worth taking? I love my Macharius Company - they're lovely models, especially the Vulcan Mega-Bolter one - but damn if they aren't a colossal waste of points. Malcador's doubly so.

Did you see the changes in the new edition of IA:Apocalypse? The Macharius Vulcan got the "fire twice" rule and is now a very good unit, while the Malcadors all got substantial price decreases to a much more reasonable level.

No they didn't. All Malcador variants are still over costed. They'd need another 15-40% off to be worth taking.

I guess all Leman Russ entries in this book also no longer have the lumbering behemoth rule, aye?

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
No they didn't. All Malcador variants are still over costed. They'd need another 15-40% off to be worth taking.

Exactly. Just having 2 Structure Points doesn't somehow make it a terror of the battlefield (that and most Super-Heavies are absolute glass hammers that people fear more out of reputation than any rational in-game reasons). The Malcador is a junk unit that is too slow and too fragile and far too expensive to be worth anything. Any time when taking equal points in Russes is a better option means that the tank is bad (and this applies to the Macharius trio as well).

To be fair, there is no points cost that would make the Malcador worth taking with its statline. It's a malformed abortion of a unit unfit for any purpose. The Minotaur and Valdor are marginally better, but still utter garbage.

Started an ABG thread in tactics, as it isn't really a rumour any more:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/493081.page

 kronk wrote:
I suppose if a book covering Legio is coming out, that makes more sense. But there's only a few titan classes, so I'm not sure it would warrant a book. Unless they went whole-hog ad-mech..

Oh god please let that be true ..................just not at the Horus Heresy Price :(

And good to see them not dealing with a problem caused of edition change. "It's just a challange!" with the AB list? How about "Tanks taken as Troops are Scoring" so the army can be used. "Take infantry" in an all-tank army is not a solution. Why even play the all-tank army if doing so means you auto-lose certain missions?

In 2 out of 6 of the book missions, your heavies score or your fast attack scores. This is in addition to any Troops (mounted infantry units you bring). It's not the end of the world.

 BrookM wrote:
I guess all Leman Russ entries in this book also no longer have the lumbering behemoth rule, aye?

They still do, it just explains that the Lumbering Behemoth rule means they follow the rules for for Heavy Vehicles in the main rulebook.

 CaptKaruthors wrote:

And good to see them not dealing with a problem caused of edition change. "It's just a challange!" with the AB list? How about "Tanks taken as Troops are Scoring" so the army can be used. "Take infantry" in an all-tank army is not a solution. Why even play the all-tank army if doing so means you auto-lose certain missions?

In 2 out of 6 of the book missions, your heavies score or your fast attack scores. This is in addition to any Troops (mounted infantry units you bring). It's not the end of the world.

That's not exactly an effective workaround to the whole scoring problem.

And while I can't wait to play this army, I'm very glad the tanks aren't scoring. Simply put, if they were scoring NOBODY would agree to play against it, no matter how balanced it was. The only reason people at my club are even considering playing against it is because the lack of scoring troops balances out the insane firepower the list brings.

Although to be completely honest, until I get a few more tanks, the list will mostly be run as allies for my regular guard so that I can run more than 3 tanks without squadroning them.

People have repeatedly been asking about the Hades, and having gotten the book now, I can say (happily IMHO) that the Hades has received a much needed nerf.

First of all, it now comes bundled with the Vet squad at a total price of 100 points. The vet squad is not just a cut-paste from the codex. This is a very limited vet squad, that can only take x2 special weapons, and doesn't have access to all the different disciplines (they just have the option to take carapace armor and/or melta bombs...no demo charge, etc).

But the big change now is that if the Hades deep strikes under a vehicle or building and doesn't destroy that vehicle/building, then the Hades automatically suffers a deep strike mishap, with a -2 penalty on the roll (meaning a very good chance of being destroyed). And if the Hades is destroyed by the Drill then their following squad is lost as well.

Well that isn't good D:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Well that isn't good D:

Yeah. My solution is to just refuse to use those awful rules until FW restores it back to the way it should be. If it needs a nerf, fine, raise the point cost, but don't rip the heart out of the drill-based army I've spent a ton of time and effort on. It's poor game design, and a textbook case of giving in to the whiners who cried over and over again about how overpowered the unit was without ever bothering to understand how it worked.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Well that isn't good D:

Yeah. My solution is to just refuse to use those awful rules until FW restores it back to the way it should be. If it needs a nerf, fine, raise the point cost, but don't rip the heart out of the drill-based army I've spent a ton of time and effort on. It's poor game design, and a textbook case of giving in to the whiners who cried over and over again about how overpowered the unit was without ever bothering to understand how it worked.

How deliciously ironic!

 azreal13 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Well that isn't good D:

Yeah. My solution is to just refuse to use those awful rules until FW restores it back to the way it should be. If it needs a nerf, fine, raise the point cost, but don't rip the heart out of the drill-based army I've spent a ton of time and effort on. It's poor game design, and a textbook case of giving in to the whiners who cried over and over again about how overpowered the unit was without ever bothering to understand how it worked.

How deliciously ironic!

What, that I reject something FW printed because it sucks? It's only "ironic" if you ignore the part where I admit that it's my own house rule and don't dispute that the rules as published by GW state otherwise.

No, it's ironic because you're whining about people you perceive to be whining.

To the point you've metaphorically picked up your ball and gone home.

 azreal13 wrote:
No, it's ironic because you're whining about people you perceive to be whining.

Sorry, but pointing out the truth is not whining. Hades drills got a level of outrage that was FAR out of proportion to how good they really were (especially compared to much more overpowered codex units) because people saw the best case scenario for what it could do and whined and cried about it, while completely ignoring all of the drawbacks and ways in which it can fail horribly. It would be like if GW removed tactical squads because idiots kept making endless whine threads about how overpowered it is when they roll all 6s for shooting and never fail armor saves. Sorry to point it out, but part of being a professional game designer is knowing the difference between legitimate criticism and uninformed whining, and having the spine to tell the whiners to shut up and deal with it.

To the point you've metaphorically picked up your ball and gone home.

Yeah, how horrible of me to refuse to play with a new rule that literally makes my army cease to exist. My entire army is based on having veteran squads and Hades drills with my only troops, take that away and make them a non-scoring unit and I no longer have a legal army. Take away the upgrade options and I no longer have legal units modeled. This would be like if GW published a new C:SM that deleted tactical squads entirely and made scouts the only troops choice, and I would have a lot of sympathy for any marine players who told GW where to shove their new rules and continued playing with their existing codex.

Look, I don't know the rules for the drill, and don't have any prejudice against it, but perhaps a vague sense it was considered a pretty solid unit. I can surmise however that
A) You were convinced enough as to their quality to make a dedicated list, to the point which this change has screwed it
B)Many people's version of the 'truth' differed from your own 'truth'
C) Lists get nerfed regularly when codexes are updated, and while I understand the frustration, a more balanced list is seldom as badly affected
D) You're biased towards the unit

Do you propose that CSM players stick with the 3.5 dex because it was better?

Or do you believe they should change their lists and tactics to reflect the changes and get maximum effect from their new book?

It's you're right to house rule of course, but I stand by my original comment.

Look say what you want about perigrine, but think. If you had spent that much cash on FW drills only to be drastically changed, you would be pissed too.

Oh, undoubtedly! On that point he has my sympathy.

They haven't been retconned into oblivion though, they still exist, they will just need a different approach.

No different to any other army based around any other type of unit that's found its rules changed, be it a little or a lot.

Now obviously FW don't update their rules as often as GW does (and I really just typed that...), but one should not be surprised when things change.

No one forces you to invest the money in the first place, either.

 yakface wrote:

People have repeatedly been asking about the Hades, and having gotten the book now, I can say (happily IMHO) that the Hades has received a much needed nerf.

First of all, it now comes bundled with the Vet squad at a total price of 100 points. The vet squad is not just a cut-paste from the codex. This is a very limited vet squad, that can only take x2 special weapons, and doesn't have access to all the different disciplines (they just have the option to take carapace armor and/or melta bombs...no demo charge, etc).

But the big change now is that if the Hades deep strikes under a vehicle or building and doesn't destroy that vehicle/building, then the Hades automatically suffers a deep strike mishap, with a -2 penalty on the roll (meaning a very good chance of being destroyed). And if the Hades is destroyed by the Drill then their following squad is lost as well.

Excellent, this is good news. Now I can take a few without feeling dirty for using an undercosted unit with way too much abuse potential.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Look say what you want about perigrine, but think. If you had spent that much cash on FW drills only to be drastically changed, you would be pissed too.

I spent a few grand on an ork and a dark eldar army, both built about the principals of assaulting from vehicles. Both armies have been hosed solidly by GW in 6th ed.

I am sympathetic, but it's limited.

I am kinda fethed till Christmas, as my only troops choice right now are 2 squads of 6 Engineers, extremely squishy, so I use the Drill to keep the men alive till the Grenadiers take out a few
enemies then the Engineers come and blow the survivors.

Oh well, STR 10 AP 1 Melta large blast, still a pretty darn good chance to destroy something.

@MeanGreenStompa

OT I know, but I thought open topped vehicles still counted as assault vehicles?