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 don't know if this has been talked over or not, TLTR, but my footguard would bend OP's friends list over and make 'em squeal like a pig. The problem with lists like that is that you put a hell of a lot of eggs in one basket, a basket still vulnerable to things like massive quantities of TL Lascannons

like i been saying.... taking less then 4 units in a game, no matter how BAMF you think those units are, are going to face serious trouble against an army that has more units. plain and simple. weapons dont matter....shooting vrs assault does not matter. what matters is: you can only kill 3-4 MAX of his units, while his entire army can focus on your deathstar or support, wipe it out and reduce your army effectivness by 25% or more. not to mention the 2/3 games that objectives come into play.

If the army is sufficiently durable, and you can use terrain and/or refused flank maneuvers to limit how much of the opponent's army can actually focus on you, then that's not necesssarily the case. As Blackmoor's battle reports with Draigowing show.

Blackmoor's already responded to your points, NAS, but I'll throw my own two cents in.

I didn't even put two and two together that you can't have Terminators and Colossi in the same army lol. So when you brought up that point about the Colossus you were just making a hyperbolic statement (trolling?)

Why would Blackmoor worry about coherency if his opponent has nothing to take advantage of it with? Particularly when clumping up has its advantages in this particular match up?

Surely, as a good player yourself, you understand the importance of modifying your tactics to fit the opponent you're playing? You're honestly going to call Blackmoor lazy instead of a flexible general because he didn't space out to avoid nonexistent blasts?

It doesn't take a player of Blackmoor's caliber to say, "Hmm. My opponent's running a squadron of 3 Medusas with bastion-breachers. Perhaps I should space my expensive deathstar out so he can hit as few as possible. Y'know, this might be a great idea anyways so I can multi-assault more of his vehicles at once."

And calling people out on bad manners when you're the only person in this thread who has needed to rein them in thus far is just poor form. Particularly when you treat this debate like politics, taking an example that doesn't support your point (the battle report of Blackmoor clumping up), pulling it out of context, and using it to both support your failing argument and bad-mouth another person's playing style.

It's ok to be wrong on the Internet. When you first mentioned Medusas, I was pretty down on them. I altered my opinion as the result of what you posted, like a rational human being. I'm not going to keep debating a point with someone who is too belligerent to do the same.

Run two bloodthirsters and 80 Bloodletters into them.

Roboute wrote:Blackmoor's already responded to your points, NAS, but I'll throw my own two cents in.

I didn't even put two and two together that you can't have Terminators and Colossi in the same army lol. So when you brought up that point about the Colossus you were just making a hyperbolic statement (trolling?)

Why would Blackmoor worry about coherency if his opponent has nothing to take advantage of it with? Particularly when clumping up has its advantages in this particular match up?

Surely, as a good player yourself, you understand the importance of modifying your tactics to fit the opponent you're playing? You're honestly going to call Blackmoor lazy instead of a flexible general because he didn't space out to avoid nonexistent blasts?

It doesn't take a player of Blackmoor's caliber to say, "Hmm. My opponent's running a squadron of 3 Medusas with bastion-breachers. Perhaps I should space my expensive deathstar out so he can hit as few as possible. Y'know, this might be a great idea anyways so I can multi-assault more of his vehicles at once."

And calling people out on bad manners when you're the only person in this thread who has needed to rein them in thus far is just poor form. Particularly when you treat this debate like politics, taking an example that doesn't support your point (the battle report of Blackmoor clumping up), pulling it out of context, and using it to both support your failing argument and bad-mouth another person's playing style.

It's ok to be wrong on the Internet. When you first mentioned Medusas, I was pretty down on them. I altered my opinion as the result of what you posted, like a rational human being. I'm not going to keep debating a point with someone who is too belligerent to do the same.

I am not trying to be belligerent dude. I hope you don't feel that way about me. I just call shenanigans on self proclaiming yourself the wordl's #1 expert, when you clearly are not.

There are very good reasons for not clumping Paladins in most (but not all) tactical situations, the least of which is not developing & displaying bad habits. In this particular game, there were actual technical reasons his Paladins should not have been clumped.

It is kind of a petty thing, and I don't want to keep going over it. My main point was to demonstrate that it is very easy for a small blast marker to hit multiple Paladins.

To the OP:

Borrow an Ork army!

1. Orks are awesome. Once you feel the power and see the looks on the opponents face when you announce, it's so worth it.

2. If you can beat GK in a Kill Point match, using any other army will be a cake walk. Trying to win against a great GK player with an all-comers Ork list is probably one of the toughest challenges you'll face in 40K.

3. If somehow you win, you'll be able to gloat about that for years.

Disclaimer: I hate anything Space Marine, despise Terminators, and absolutely abhor Grey Knights. Of course, most of my favorite opponents play Marines so i have nothing against People who choose a Marine army. Everytime a Slugga Boyz mob shoots a Paladin off the board I sing a victory song in my head.

Also, just because a lot of new players choose GK does not make it an easy army with which to win. In fact, Ork armies are incredibly simply to play, the only strategy is list building and deployment. Once the game starts, Orks run on auto-pilot. I have a lot of respect for GK players, they have many more decisions to make, each one potentially costing them large parts of their armies or even the game.

Orks? What you just killed 20 of my boyz in a shooting phase? Good, less models I have to move next turn. Playing with an Ork army is a mind expanding experience. If nothing else, you learn to accept loses with humility.

NoArmorSave wrote:

Roboute wrote:Blackmoor's already responded to your points, NAS, but I'll throw my own two cents in.

I didn't even put two and two together that you can't have Terminators and Colossi in the same army lol. So when you brought up that point about the Colossus you were just making a hyperbolic statement (trolling?)

Why would Blackmoor worry about coherency if his opponent has nothing to take advantage of it with? Particularly when clumping up has its advantages in this particular match up?

Surely, as a good player yourself, you understand the importance of modifying your tactics to fit the opponent you're playing? You're honestly going to call Blackmoor lazy instead of a flexible general because he didn't space out to avoid nonexistent blasts?

It doesn't take a player of Blackmoor's caliber to say, "Hmm. My opponent's running a squadron of 3 Medusas with bastion-breachers. Perhaps I should space my expensive deathstar out so he can hit as few as possible. Y'know, this might be a great idea anyways so I can multi-assault more of his vehicles at once."

And calling people out on bad manners when you're the only person in this thread who has needed to rein them in thus far is just poor form. Particularly when you treat this debate like politics, taking an example that doesn't support your point (the battle report of Blackmoor clumping up), pulling it out of context, and using it to both support your failing argument and bad-mouth another person's playing style.

It's ok to be wrong on the Internet. When you first mentioned Medusas, I was pretty down on them. I altered my opinion as the result of what you posted, like a rational human being. I'm not going to keep debating a point with someone who is too belligerent to do the same.

I am not trying to be belligerent dude. I hope you don't feel that way about me. I just call shenanigans on self proclaiming yourself the wordl's #1 expert, when you clearly are not.

There are very good reasons for not clumping Paladins in most (but not all) tactical situations, the least of which is not developing & displaying bad habits. In this particular game, there were actual technical reasons his Paladins should not have been clumped.

It is kind of a petty thing, and I don't want to keep going over it. My main point was to demonstrate that it is very easy for a small blast marker to hit multiple Paladins.

I don't think Blackmoor literally meant he is the best Draigowing player. If you have met him you will know he is a pretty humble guy for the most part.

NoArmorSave wrote:I am not trying to be belligerent dude. I hope you don't feel that way about me. I just call shenanigans on self proclaiming yourself the wordl's #1 expert, when you clearly are not.

While I understand that mindset, it seems as though you've let your desire to take Blackmoor down a peg get you into a sticky situation. You've taken some (IMO) very strange positions, and don't seem to want to back down from them even as you claim to not be belligerent.

NoArmorSave wrote:There are very good reasons for not clumping Paladins in most (but not all) tactical situations, the least of which is not developing & displaying bad habits. In this particular game, there were actual technical reasons his Paladins should not have been clumped.

This is the part that baffles me. In this particular game, there were actual technical reasons clumping his Paladins was a good idea. As you yourself pointed out, his opponent would have to be an idiot to shoot frags over kraks at the Paladins, and his opponent didn't have any other blast weapons. You haven't shown any reasons why he shouldn't clump Paladins in that particular situation aside from "developing bad habits," which is a confusing criticism to make based on Blackmoor's behavior in a single game. It seems like you picked that batrep just to criticize Blackmoor, because it certainly didn't support your point about small blasts.

NoArmorSave wrote:It is kind of a petty thing, and I don't want to keep going over it. My main point was to demonstrate that it is very easy for a small blast marker to hit multiple Paladins.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about! Your main point is indeed kind of a petty thing, but you refuse to admit that you might have been partially incorrect about it!

Let me rephrase what I've been trying to say. As you say, it is indeed very easy for a small blast marker to hit multiple Paladins, if your opponent allows it. Unfortunately, this occurrence is 100% determined by your opponent's behavior, specifically whether he spaces his models at maximum coherency. Thus, while completely possible in theory, against an intelligent opponent it is a given that in a standard situation (Paladins marching across the board), the models will be spaced so you can only hit one with a small blast, particularly if your blasts are as scary as Medusas with BB shells. The exception to the rule is the example you've cited, because there are no credible blast threats in that batrep. However, this batrep is the exception to the rule, and you're acting like it proves the rule's opposite.

In fact, didn't this whole conversation start because I said something like:

"You know what, Medusas do sound like a good counter to Paladins. But I'd probably stick with regular shells, because the BB shells will only hit a single Paladin at a time."

and you proceeded to defend your statement about BB shells by launching a long and (IMO, bizarre) argument for small blast templates. Perhaps you were just incorrect about BB shells being more effective against a Draigowing than regular shells? If you think about it, even assuming that the Paladin player has mistakenly clumped enough to be hit multiple times by a small blast, that just means the large blast will get even more Paladins. Both shell types have a longer range than psycannons and both can still be hit by Psyflemen. It seems that, against Paladins (as well as in a TAC list), Medusas with BB shells just aren't the stronger option.

That was also the point when we were still on topic, so I think returning there is more productive anyways.

I'm not sure how well it would work on Palladins, but I pulled off a tactic that worked very well on a unit of 10 GK Terminators with 8 Halbreds and 2 Hammers. I organized an assault so that my BA Assault Squad would get into BtB with almost every model in the unit, and then I used my Stormraven to get my DC just within range to assault just 1-2 models. He had to direct most of his attacks against the Assault Squad (7-9 died), but then my DC hit him with 4 power weapons that killed all but 1 Hammer...who died the next round.

If I went up against Palladins, I'd probably try to set up a similar assault to minimize losses against my most offensive unit(s) by using another unit to tie up the majority of his swings, thereby diminishing his combat effectiveness. Of course I would aim every MM and LC at the unit, but I'd most likely be forced to assault them at some point.

It wont work vs Pallies due to the 2W each unless you can generate 20+ power weapon wounds.

The unit I run now has a DC unit with 5 power weapons (not counting the Reclusiarch) and their Stormraven also carries a DC Dreadnought. If I'm able to coordinate the ideal assault, then I could probably generate 20+ power weapon wounds.

Sweet ! I'd try to work a dread into the mix.

Marshal_Gus wrote:The unit I run now has a DC unit with 5 power weapons (not counting the Reclusiarch) and their Stormraven also carries a DC Dreadnought. If I'm able to coordinate the ideal assault, then I could probably generate 20+ power weapon wounds.

Under ideal circumstances, this could work very well. If you got as many Assault Marines in BtB as possible, you could tie up the squad and let the DC do their work. Power fists would be much more effective than power weapons, although since they're striking last he'd probably allocate those wounds to wounded models anyways. This would be an all-or-nothing gambit, though, as everything you assaulted with would be dead in the following Assault phase should the Paladins fail to break.

Why? Quickening and Might of Titans. They can only be cast in the GK player's turn, but they make his paladins strike first with 2d6 armor penetration. Combined with last round's pile-in, they would probably have the attacks to kill the DC and the Dreadnought. The Librarian is one of the few models that are most likely to stick around, due to being an IC and having a 2++ in CC with the mandatory stave.

That said, this tactic could work because the most reliable way to defeat a big Paladin deathstar in CC is to hit them hard in one Assault phase and force a Morale check with a big modifier. If they break, they will on average not regroup (average 7" fall back distance minus average 3.5" consolidation). Then you chase them off the board.

Marshal_Gus wrote:The unit I run now has a DC unit with 5 power weapons (not counting the Reclusiarch) and their Stormraven also carries a DC Dreadnought. If I'm able to coordinate the ideal assault, then I could probably generate 20+ power weapon wounds.

It won't be effective at taking out a 10 man strong unit of Paladins. You do understand that they can allocate their wounds across the entire squad, and 3 of the wounds will likely be a moot point? They will put 1 on Draigo who has a 3++ save, 1 on the Librarian who has a 2++ save (warding stave), and another one on a Paladin that has a 2++ save (warding stave). These wounds will most likely not get thru, and you will have to cause somewhere around 13 unsaved wounds before the Paladins remove a single model. You need instant death weapons to realistically deal with Paladins. You might, and it is a big might, cause enough wounds to win combat and force them to break. But it is a huge gamble, and not in your favor.

A single 8 strong Bloodcrusher squad coming in with 32 S6 power weapon attacks will most likely not take out a 10 man Paladin deathstar. It takes 2 of these (64 S6 power weapon attacks) to significantly neuter the Paladins. Bloodcrushers are the strongest assault unit in the game, right next to Paladins. If you are going to try to assault Paladins with BA, you need lots of Power Fists and\or Thunderhammers. Even then, it is going to be dicey, because 3 of those wounds are out the window immediately, and the Paladins will all be striking first and most likely wounding on 2's with 20-30 (maybe even more depending on circumstances) power weapon attacks of their own.

20+ saves that bypass armor is going to really hurt the Paladins... this something the Crushers can't do. Assume that all of these attacks are allocated to the 10 Paladins - they have a stave and four swords

Stave - 2 saves - assume passes both
1st sword - one pass and one fail
2nd sword - both pass
3rd sword - both fail
4th sword - one pass and one fail
#6 - both fail
#7 - one pass and one fail
#8 - both fail
#9 - one pass and one fail
#10 both fail

It does not outright kill the unit but now everyone except stave has one wound left. Toss in a draed with talons and they are toast.

NoArmorSave wrote:It won't be effective at taking out a 10 man strong unit of Paladins. You do understand that they can allocate their wounds across the entire squad, and 3 of the wounds will likely be a moot point? They will put 1 on Draigo who has a 3++ save, 1 on the Librarian who has a 2++ save (warding stave), and another one on a Paladin that has a 2++ save (warding stave). These wounds will most likely not get thru, and you will have to cause somewhere around 13 unsaved wounds before the Paladins remove a single model. You need instant death weapons to realistically deal with Paladins.

Remember, he can't allocate to Draigo or the Librarian in CC, they are separate units. In our previous math hammer examples, we assumed Draigo and the Librarian would take some wounds because they would be in BtB with at least one enemy. In this situation, Draigo and the Librarian are tied up by an Assault Squad, so they are soaking a bunch of crap attacks instead of the DC's power weapon wounds. Part of the strength of this strategy is that it takes Draigo and the Librarian out of the equation temporarily. Only the first out of every 10 attacks will be soaked by the 2++ stave.

To ensure the paladins lose, a larger squad of DC with more power fists would be advisable. Also, a Dread with a DCCW would probably work better than blood talons in this case, as it causes ID. Otherwise you'd be left with a bunch of wounded Pallies and the fists would be no different from power weapons. All power weapons and blood talons on the dread is another way to go, but IMO not as reliable.

NoArmorSave wrote:A single 8 strong Bloodcrusher squad coming in with 32 S6 power weapon attacks will most likely not take out a 10 man Paladin deathstar. It takes 2 of these (64 S6 power weapon attacks) to significantly neuter the Paladins. Bloodcrushers are the strongest assault unit in the game, right next to Paladins. If you are going to try to assault Paladins with BA, you need lots of Power Fists and\or Thunderhammers. Even then, it is going to be dicey, because 3 of those wounds are out the window immediately, and the Paladins will all be striking first and most likely wounding on 2's with 20-30 (maybe even more depending on circumstances) power weapon attacks of their own.

This situation is much different than a combat against 2 squads of Bloodcrushers. Against 16 Bloodcrushers, every wound the Paladins cause will have an impact on the Crushers' subsequent attacks, reducing the damage they take in return. In this BA example, the Paladins' huge number of strong attacks is wasted on wiping out a sacrificial Assault squad (which doesn't do crap anyways), while the DC stay hale and hearty to swing back at the Paladins.

A better analogy would be charging a unit of Paladins with a unit of Daemonettes, tying up most of the Paladins, and charging 8 Bloodcrushers in to only one or two Paladins. The Daemonettes would die, of course, but the Crushers would all live and make their attacks on the Paladins unmolested for that assault phase. I think BA pull this particular strategy off better because they are faster than Crushers and because the DC concentrate their killing power into a much smaller footprint.

It's also worth pointing out that this type of strategy (using a sacrificial unit to draw attacks) is a way to achieve damage that is less than but comparable to a 16-crusher charge, but for a much lower point investment (at least for a Daemon player - an Assault Squad and tricked out DC aren't exactly cheap).

Roboute wrote:

NoArmorSave wrote:I am not trying to be belligerent dude. I hope you don't feel that way about me. I just call shenanigans on self proclaiming yourself the wordl's #1 expert, when you clearly are not.

While I understand that mindset, it seems as though you've let your desire to take Blackmoor down a peg get you into a sticky situation. You've taken some (IMO) very strange positions, and don't seem to want to back down from them even as you claim to not be belligerent.

NoArmorSave wrote:There are very good reasons for not clumping Paladins in most (but not all) tactical situations, the least of which is not developing & displaying bad habits. In this particular game, there were actual technical reasons his Paladins should not have been clumped.

This is the part that baffles me. In this particular game, there were actual technical reasons clumping his Paladins was a good idea. As you yourself pointed out, his opponent would have to be an idiot to shoot frags over kraks at the Paladins, and his opponent didn't have any other blast weapons. You haven't shown any reasons why he shouldn't clump Paladins in that particular situation aside from "developing bad habits," which is a confusing criticism to make based on Blackmoor's behavior in a single game. It seems like you picked that batrep just to criticize Blackmoor, because it certainly didn't support your point about small blasts.

NoArmorSave wrote:It is kind of a petty thing, and I don't want to keep going over it. My main point was to demonstrate that it is very easy for a small blast marker to hit multiple Paladins.

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about! Your main point is indeed kind of a petty thing, but you refuse to admit that you might have been partially incorrect about it!

Let me rephrase what I've been trying to say. As you say, it is indeed very easy for a small blast marker to hit multiple Paladins, if your opponent allows it. Unfortunately, this occurrence is 100% determined by your opponent's behavior, specifically whether he spaces his models at maximum coherency. Thus, while completely possible in theory, against an intelligent opponent it is a given that in a standard situation (Paladins marching across the board), the models will be spaced so you can only hit one with a small blast, particularly if your blasts are as scary as Medusas with BB shells. The exception to the rule is the example you've cited, because there are no credible blast threats in that batrep. However, this batrep is the exception to the rule, and you're acting like it proves the rule's opposite.

In fact, didn't this whole conversation start because I said something like:

"You know what, Medusas do sound like a good counter to Paladins. But I'd probably stick with regular shells, because the BB shells will only hit a single Paladin at a time."

and you proceeded to defend your statement about BB shells by launching a long and (IMO, bizarre) argument for small blast templates. Perhaps you were just incorrect about BB shells being more effective against a Draigowing than regular shells? If you think about it, even assuming that the Paladin player has mistakenly clumped enough to be hit multiple times by a small blast, that just means the large blast will get even more Paladins. Both shell types have a longer range than psycannons and both can still be hit by Psyflemen. It seems that, against Paladins (as well as in a TAC list), Medusas with BB shells just aren't the stronger option.

That was also the point when we were still on topic, so I think returning there is more productive anyways.

" Perhaps you were just incorrect about BB shells being more effective against a Draigowing than regular shells? "

I never said they were more effective. At first, I thought you could switch your ammo type each time you shoot, which you corrected me on (I don't actually own an IG army, I just play against them).

You went on and said they were a poor choice, and I tried to demonstrate they are a viable option in a TAC list. Against Draigo Wing specifically, yes, normal shells are more effective. As far as which choice I would include in my TAC list; it would depend on the meta\environment I am playing at.
I am telling you, a barrage of 3x 48" ST10 AP1 small blasts that get an extra D6 for armor penetration and are rolling at +1 on the vehicle damage chart is really nasty. It has the potential to do truly gross things.

That is all I am going to respond to. There is no reason to keep beating a dead horse.

NoArmorSave wrote:You went on and said they were a poor choice, and I tried to demonstrate they are a viable option in a TAC list. Against Draigo Wing specifically, yes, normal shells are more effective. As far as which choice I would include in my TAC list; it would depend on the meta\environment I am playing at.
I am telling you, a barrage of 3x 48" ST10 AP1 small blasts that get an extra D6 for armor penetration and are rolling at +1 on the vehicle damage chart is really nasty. It has the potential to do truly gross things.

For sure, S10 AP1 2d6 pen blasts are nasty as hell. They are quite possibly the overall deadliest long range anti-tank in the 40K game right now. They maximize both penetration odds and damage odds. They do gross things, but how often are you going to need that overkill? The reason that I, as an IG player, would avoid them in a TAC list is because our army list is already chock-full of powerful anti-tank weapons (Vendettas, melta spam, etc. etc.). I would take Medusas for the pie plates, because other things do the BB's job, albeit with results that are probably less ball-bustingly devastating.

necron99 wrote:Wow, thanks for the clarification on POTW vs assaults vs shooting for wound allocation. That's the information I need to be able to produce as most people I play aren't used to having something other than bad rolls causing POTW - even another GK player.

I just read the Grey Knight 1.2 FAQ today (latest one). They actually specifically address this situation:

"Q: How do you work out whether a psyker is affected
by the Psi-shock special rule on a mindstrike missile or
a psyk-out bomb? (57, 58)
A: Any psyker under the template will be effected by
Psi-shock."

FAQ's can be downloaded here:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3400019&multiPageMode=true&start=2&_requestid=829843

What they need to do, is FAQ the stupid Mordrak+Librarian+The Summoning shenanigans. I play with a guy that likes to put Land Raiders filled with GK directly in my deployment zone. I can get around it, but for some armies it is beyond broken, and is one of the cheesiest things I have ever seen in 40K.

Small blasts are tough to get multiple hits with, unless your opponent is piling out of a transport, crammed into a crater from being blown out of their transport, or tank-shocked or Lashed into tight formation. I concur that Blackmoor or another good player fielding an expensive unit against high-strength, low-AP blasts will reliably spread out and you're fooling yourself if you expect to get multiple hits without forcing him to do so somehow.

Blackmoor is the "foremost" Draigowing player in the country, in that he's the only guy I'm aware of taking it to major GTs and placing at or very near the top. He took 2nd at the NOVA Open with it last year, and I don't know of any other Draigowing players who've had any top five or even top 10 GT finishes, particularly at one of the really big events like NOVA, Adepticon or WargamesCon. He might not be the best player using it in the US, but that's really impossible to determine. He's certainly the most successful so far on the national tournament scene.

Anyway, glad to see the discussion came to a peaceable point and has moved on.

Best way to deal with grey knights Draigowing - massed meltaguns/lascannons. Take as many high str/low AP weapons as possible. Space marine vindicators scare me when im using my grey knights. Basically you want to inflict more than one high str/lowAP shot at a time, to ensure Draigo doesnt soak it all up. Remember kids, Paladins tend to get expensive fast, so every one you kill is a sizeable chunk of his army gone

NoArmorSave wrote:
I just read the Grey Knight 1.2 FAQ today (latest one). They actually specifically address this situation:

"Q: How do you work out whether a psyker is affected
by the Psi-shock special rule on a mindstrike missile or
a psyk-out bomb? (57, 58)
A: Any psyker under the template will be effected by
Psi-shock."

Precisely. If it's a Paladin, the hit will be randomly distributed via Brotherhood of Psykers, but that's because the whole squad counts as a single psyker. A Librarian under the template will get sniped.

Mannahnin wrote:
Blackmoor is the "foremost" Draigowing player in the country, in that he's the only guy I'm aware of taking it to major GTs and placing at or very near the top. He took 2nd at the NOVA Open with it last year, and I don't know of any other Draigowing players who've had any top five or even top 10 GT finishes, particularly at one of the really big events like NOVA, Adepticon or WargamesCon. He might not be the best player using it in the US, but that's really impossible to determine. He's certainly the most successful so far on the national tournament scene.

I just threw "Foremost Draigowing expert" out there as a joke.

I did not think anyone would catch it...it took 2 pages, but there it was!

I expected that you did mean it ironically, but it's still true, even if a funny thing to say.

I am building a guard list now, and I've been thinking of putting 3 LRBT's in the army.
Would 3 battle cannon shots a turn be enough to dent draigowing to death?

labmouse42 wrote:I am building a guard list now, and I've been thinking of putting 3 LRBT's in the army.
Would 3 battle cannon shots a turn be enough to dent draigowing to death?

Probably not. It also relies on your opponent failing saves, which isn't as reliable as denying him those saves in the first place.

Any source of multiple S8+ AP2 shots will help - Vendettas, CCS and Vet squads with plasma/melta, HWS, Demolishers, Medusas. Longer range is generally better.

labmouse42 wrote:I am building a guard list now, and I've been thinking of putting 3 LRBT's in the army.
Would 3 battle cannon shots a turn be enough to dent draigowing to death?

No, it would no be sufficient for Paladin's. LRBT is AP3, so they are saving on 2's. You might be able to kill a few, but it
won't matter once they reach your lines.

You need S8+ AP2 or AP1 in your Heavy Slots. That is why I like the Medusa, and as Roboute mentioned, a Demolisher
is Paladin death as well.

Thats a good point on the AP2 issue. My worry with demos is they must be within 24", which happens to be psycannon range, and a rending shot will at least shake a demo.

labmouse42 wrote:Thats a good point on the AP2 issue. My worry with demos is they must be within 24", which happens to be psycannon range, and a rending shot will at least shake a demo.

That is why I like Medusas. They have a 36" range (48" with Bastion Shells), ST10 AP2. You can field 3 in a squad.

You would need to give them cammo netting and use other vehicles (Chimeras) to control line of site to them. If they are ever exposed to the Psyrflemen, they are
done. However, they only need 1 turn of shooting to do massive damage.