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.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

And the person I quoted said 12, not 11.

Yeah, that was me. You quoted me before I made the edit. I was going off the top of my head on points, then double checked and updated it.

Do not do this, its extremely impolite and against the rules - ingtær.

What do you think is going to be more durable and points efficient, 2 Infantry Squads/Cadian Shock Troops, or 1 and a Chimera?

Basically, if transports are bad this edition, is that still carrying over to the new Guard Codex?

Arcanis161 wrote:
What do you think is going to be more durable and points efficient, 2 Infantry Squads/Cadian Shock Troops, or 1 and a Chimera?

Basically, if transports are bad this edition, is that still carrying over to the new Guard Codex?

1 squad and a chimera will be more durable (especially if you bring more vehicles for target saturation), but 2 squads will deal more damage.

Shock Troops, especially when ordered, can deal a surprising amount of damage.

Two line infantry squads will provide better board control, will get though ruins easily and are not specially slow. But a few embarked squads (Cadian or Kasrkin) may have some use. I think having a sprinkling of them may add resilience and tactical flexibility, even if you don't use the mechanised regimental trait. Take for example the commissar, which have orders that you may find handy, like "get back to the fight". Having the commissar hidden inside a Chimera would give you the possibility of benefitting his order in a way larger area than if he was on foot in the command phase.

All of this arguing by undiscipline Commanders is shameful! If we are going to talk about Russ spam lets talk about how a competitive Tyranid list will try to take out our Russes. This question is not directed towards the Russ spam list idea but in general I would like to know how Tyranids deal with our vehicles in particular Russes.

The more I look at it, the less appealing Bullgryns with mauls are to me in this book.
I'd probably take Ogryns or even Bullgryns with Gauntlets over them now...

Bullgryns /w Mauls; 35 pts (+5)
Gained:
-1 dmg taken.
(Maul got nerfed to +1S so they remain S7.)

Meanwhile;
Bullgryns /w Gauntlets: 30 pts (same)
Gained:
-1 dmg taken.
+1 Strength.
+6" range on the Gauntlet.
+1 AP on the Gauntlet.

Ogryns: 30 pts (+5)
Gained:
-1 dmg taken.
+1 Strength.
+2 AP on Ripper.
+1 Damage on Ripper.
Point-Blank-Barrage.

If you want Bullgryns over Ogryns for either that 2+ or 4++, then Gauntlets feels like a much better (and slightly cheaper) choice right now. 6D6 S4 AP1 shots at 18" is nothing to scoff at.
Feels like the Maul should've remained +2 Str so they where S8 at least and/or a free sidegrade instead of costing 5 points, given how buffed the Gauntlet-version of Bullgryns got.

Put them behind a Aegis Defense Line and they'll be pretty hard to shift, and 18" range means they can still do stuff.

 CKO wrote:
All of this arguing by undiscipline Commanders is shameful! If we are going to talk about Russ spam lets talk about how a competitive Tyranid list will try to take out our Russes. This question is not directed towards the Russ spam list idea but in general I would like to know how Tyranids deal with our vehicles in particular Russes.

We can fire our Turrets out of combat. So even if every single Russ in a Russ spam list gets into combat, you just need to back 1-2 out of combat and the rest can blam the now exposed Tyranid units.

Gentlemen, no fighting in the war room!

Thank you all for your feedback.

I probably won't get that many LRBT (well... I did go from 1 to 3 to 8 pretty darn fast so who knows, just a few more).

But the general consensus, seems to be no sponsons, or HB/HF at that.

Anyway let's see if I can get them on the table sometime soon

Could someone with the limited edition codex explain how the options of the regular infantry squad work ? I already know that the heavy weapon and special weapon are free. A bit of a shame for heavy bolter and grenade launcher being on the same level than more powerful options, but hey, this is GW. What about the rest ? Are there any losses from the 8th edition book ? Which options are still available and at what cost ?

This summer, with all the upgrades made free, I dusted off my vox casters and 3 converted sergeants with power axes from 7th edition era (count as power swords), then had some fun. But I would like to know the upcoming situation before committing to any other conversion.

What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

Stormhammer I could probably proxy since it's absolute crap now.

Infantry squads have the same options as before. Basically the only stuff you need to pay for are plasma pistols and power swords. So 65 base, +5 for a power sword and + for plasma pistol. Thankfully none of the old squad loadouts were invalidated.

 Valkyrie wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

Stormhammer I could probably proxy since it's absolute crap now.

Still trash because of the 9th edition core rules. You still die to one-way line of sight, you still can't reliably move out of your deployment zone on tables with enough terrain for 9th, and you still have to choose between paying all of your starting CP (and therefore getting no relics or WLTs) to take three of them or paying no CP but not getting your doctrine buffs.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
What are people's thoughts on the new Superheavies? Nice to see they've gotten a well-deserved boost, and I currently have a Baneblade, Shadowsword, Octoblade and Stormhammer that I'm hoping to finally use for once.

Stormhammer I could probably proxy since it's absolute crap now.

Still trash because of the 9th edition core rules. You still die to one-way line of sight, you still can't reliably move out of your deployment zone on tables with enough terrain for 9th, and you still have to choose between paying all of your starting CP (and therefore getting no relics or WLTs) to take three of them or paying no CP but not getting your doctrine buffs.

Ok let's assume I'm not a WAAC and still want to play one because sod it, big tanks are fun. Which variants are people favouring?

 Valkyrie wrote:
Ok let's assume I'm not a WAAC and still want to play one because sod it, big tanks are fun. Which variants are people favouring?

Banesword is probably the least-terrible since it's the cheapest option and has a decent gun. You'll still need your opponents to deliberately tone down their lists to go easy on you and you'll definitely need to play on terrain layouts specifically designed to allow you to use it, but take the Banesword and Lord Solar to buff it and you at least have some reasonably efficient dice math. Though TBH once you're talking about that level of rejecting list optimization and asking people to go easy on you just take whichever one you think looks cool, on-table performance has been thrown out entirely at that point.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Banesword is probably the least-terrible since it's the cheapest option and has a decent gun. You'll still need your opponents to deliberately tone down their lists to go easy on you and you'll definitely need to play on terrain layouts specifically designed to allow you to use it, but take the Banesword and Lord Solar to buff it and you at least have some reasonably efficient dice math. Though TBH once you're talking about that level of rejecting list optimization and asking people to go easy on you just take whichever one you think looks cool, on-table performance has been thrown out entirely at that point.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Still trash because of the 9th edition core rules. You still die to one-way line of sight, you still can't reliably move out of your deployment zone on tables with enough terrain for 9th, and you still have to choose between paying all of your starting CP (and therefore getting no relics or WLTs) to take three of them or paying no CP but not getting your doctrine buffs.

Are you purposefully trashing units? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not looking hard enough or perhaps you don't have the codex and are using only rumors. When I get back from the gym I will defend the humble infantry squad and I will gladly defend our super heavy variants.

 CKO wrote:
Are you purposefully trashing units? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not looking hard enough or perhaps you don't have the codex and are using only rumors. When I get back from the gym I will defend the humble infantry squad and I will gladly defend our super heavy variants.

I have the codex right here and yes, I am trashing units because they are bad. The core rules of 9th are cripplingly harsh on titanic units and virtually all of them are terrible. It doesn't matter how great a unit's stat line is if it can't move out of your deployment zone and gets shot to death by units it can't see to return fire against.

And I have no idea why you're talking about defending infantry squads. What do you need to defend them from? They're a fine unit and their only real problem is that the plasma/melta Cadian squad is often a better choice. But even then sometimes you want a lascannon over a melta gun.

The problem with Baneblades is that 3 Russes (or 1 Leman Russ and 1 Dorn) will outperform them for (nearly) the same pts-cost - but if you're willing to look past this then most of the Banebladevariants are "fine", just stay away from the Hellhammer.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Are you purposefully trashing units? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are not looking hard enough or perhaps you don't have the codex and are using only rumors. When I get back from the gym I will defend the humble infantry squad and I will gladly defend our super heavy variants.

I have the codex right here and yes, I am trashing units because they are bad. The core rules of 9th are cripplingly harsh on titanic units and virtually all of them are terrible. It doesn't matter how great a unit's stat line is if it can't move out of your deployment zone and gets shot to death by units it can't see to return fire against.

I agree with you on the mobility part, and I think you should only use your titanic if it's the player placing terrain. The profiles on those weapons are nice and you can get up to 30 heavy bolter shots. I think it is easily in the same league as an Imperial Knight. Will I use it in a tournament no but, I can see someone taking one and giving it a tank ace for a 5++ and performing well with it.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
And I have no idea why you're talking about defending infantry squads. What do you need to defend them from? They're a fine unit and their only real problem is that the plasma/melta Cadian squad is often a better choice. But even then sometimes you want a lascannon over a melta gun.

They are not bad because they can do all the things that win us our games, such as holding objectives, being in a different table quarter, being within 24 inches of an officer with a vox. Never mind you change your mind they are a fine unit and I agree cadian squads are better due to trans-human stratagem.

 CKO wrote:
I agree with you on the mobility part, and I think you should only use your titanic if it's the player placing terrain. The profiles on those weapons are nice and you can get up to 30 heavy bolter shots. I think it is easily in the same league as an Imperial Knight. Will I use it in a tournament no but, I can see someone taking one and giving it a tank ace for a 5++ and performing well with it.

"Only use a LoW if you can place the terrain yourself and arrange a board layout that works in its favor" is why they are bad. On neutral terrain they struggle to even leave your deployment zone, you're entirely dependent on having player placed terrain to give yourself maneuvering room and your opponent not doing the obvious and placing their pieces in spots that block you. And you still have to deal with the one-way line of sight issue where every anti-tank gun on the table can shoot the LoW but it can't see them to shoot back.

And sure, someone could take one outside of a tournament context and win some games against other non-tournament lists but that's kind of my point. You wouldn't take it in a tournament list, you'd only use it in an environment where everyone is deliberately toning down their lists to a lower power level so people can use those not-good-enough-for-tournaments units. In any situation where you care about having the best tool for the job you're taking 500 points worth of LRBTs instead.

They are not bad because they can do all the things that win us our games, such as holding objectives, being in a different table quarter, being within 24 inches of an officer with a vox. Never mind you change your mind they are a fine unit and I agree cadian squads are better due to trans-human stratagem.

What are you talking about? I didn't change my mind on anything, I never said that infantry squads are bad. You're arguing against a straw man here.

The biggest issue with Baneblades are simply how large they are. On any kind of suggested terrain layout you only get two places in your deployment zone to put it, and they're basically stuck there for the entire game.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:. You wouldn't take it in a tournament list, you'd only use it in an environment where everyone is deliberately toning down their lists to a lower power level so people can use those not-good-enough-for-tournaments units.

That's already a big part of the game. It's called casual play.

I hope they keep AoC on the baneblade chassis in updated dataslate.. I mean it will still be bad but less so.

 Valkyrie wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:. You wouldn't take it in a tournament list, you'd only use it in an environment where everyone is deliberately toning down their lists to a lower power level so people can use those not-good-enough-for-tournaments units.

That's already a big part of the game. It's called casual play.

Sure, use a Baneblade in "casual" play. It's still an F-tier unit even if "casual" play for you involves using F-tier units and not caring about list optimization.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:. You wouldn't take it in a tournament list, you'd only use it in an environment where everyone is deliberately toning down their lists to a lower power level so people can use those not-good-enough-for-tournaments units.

That's already a big part of the game. It's called casual play.

Sure, use a Baneblade in "casual" play. It's still an F-tier unit even if "casual" play for you involves using F-tier units and not caring about list optimization.

Casual play is more about having fun. You should try it one day.

Isn't the point of this thread to discuss Imperial Guard tactics relative to competitive play?

 Valkyrie wrote:
Casual play is more about having fun. You should try it one day.

Competitive play is also about having fun.

And the question was about evaluating guard LoW options, not about what type of game you personally have the most fun with or your condescending attitude towards people who enjoy other types of games.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Isn't the point of this thread to discuss Imperial Guard tactics relative to competitive play?

Not necessarily, it's a "tactics"-thread in general for all forms of 9th Ed. Imperial Guard lists and playstyles, not just competitive ones.

If someone wants to field unit X and asks for the best way to field/use it, the response should be "use it like this" or "it's not that great, but it can work like this" - not "that unit is not competitive/crap, don't use it", unless said someone intends to use it for competitive play.

In regards to the current "super heavy"-discussion going on, if someone asks "I have these various Baneblade variants that I want to use for once, what are peoples thoughts?", then responding "they are trash, don't use them" really isn't helping anyone and is only lowering the quality of the thread.

 MinscS2 wrote:
In regards to the current "super heavy"-discussion going on, if someone asks "I have these various Baneblade variants that I want to use for once, what are peoples thoughts?", then responding "they are trash, don't use them" really isn't helping anyone and is only lowering the quality of the thread.

It absolutely is helping. Not every idea is a good idea and sometimes the best advice is "no, don't do that".

Unless the Baneblade chassis is something like 800+ points, it’s usable.
It might not be optimal, but it’s not useless.