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.

Reading through more of the FW stuff, can anyone explain why the Stygies Thunderer is so expensive?

The old version was significantly cheaper than the stock LR Demolisher because you were sacrificing the turret and sponson options for a hull mounted demolisher with limited firing car. Now it's more expensive than a stock LR Demolisher other than 1 additional wound.

Scratching my head on this one...

Haha FW doesn't always make sense.

I wish all these other threads hating on Scions or conscripts were instead bashing on Bullgryn. Lol. I've loved Ogryns since I first started playing in 3rd edition.

Sad that for 5 decked out Wulfen you can get 6 Bullgryn that would just get absolutely demolished by them.

I wonder how Bullgryn vs assault termies would go? I'm betting it would come down to who gets to go first ...

 More Dakka wrote:
Reading through more of the FW stuff, can anyone explain why the Stygies Thunderer is so expensive?

The old version was significantly cheaper than the stock LR Demolisher because you were sacrificing the turret and sponson options for a hull mounted demolisher with limited firing car. Now it's more expensive than a stock LR Demolisher other than 1 additional wound.

Scratching my head on this one...

I'm more concerned with why the Demolisher Cannon itself is so bad.

Haha right? Might as well just take 1 demo charge!

 More Dakka wrote:
Reading through more of the FW stuff, can anyone explain why the Stygies Thunderer is so expensive?

The old version was significantly cheaper than the stock LR Demolisher because you were sacrificing the turret and sponson options for a hull mounted demolisher with limited firing car. Now it's more expensive than a stock LR Demolisher other than 1 additional wound.

Scratching my head on this one...

Likely have intended for the cost to be with the Demolisher included. The Stygies Destroyer costs 170 with its weapon, which is very comparable to a Demolisher cannon in power, included.

About Yarrick: I played his special rule similar to how it was played last edition. He "dies"/loses last wound, wound poolis cleared, he makes 1 roll to see if he gets back up. If he gets back up he can he attached again by another target in the same phase but any overkill wounds from the target that killed him are lost. If they meant for the wound pool not to clear they just would have worded it like a 3+FNP.

That's how I've been playing him

What do you guys think of a 'budget' super-heavy in the form of a Stormsword with 4x Lascannon/Twin Heavy Bolter Sponsons?

Personally I think it is a good balance between a high priority target without putting too many eggs in one basket. It is also quite versatile in it's killing power.
And while the Heavy Flamer sponsons might be more tempting, the enemy will likely try to charge at 9" away from it to avoid the overwatch. Meanwhile, 9x heavy bolters in overwatch will still hurt quite a bit.

Doctoralex wrote:
What do you guys think of a 'budget' super-heavy in the form of a Stormsword with 4x Lascannon/Twin Heavy Bolter Sponsons?

Personally I think it is a good balance between a high priority target without putting too many eggs in one basket. It is also quite versatile in it's killing power.
And while the Heavy Flamer sponsons might be more tempting, the enemy will likely try to charge at 9" away from it to avoid the overwatch. Meanwhile, 9x heavy bolters in overwatch will still hurt quite a bit.

I have not been impressed fighting against superheavy tanks so far. Once they go down a wound profile, which is only a tiny bit harder than killing a single leman russ, they become more or less irrelevant as they must stand still to shoot on 5's or move and hit on 6's. Most alpha strikes can easily pull that off. If the get it down to 6 wounds it may as well be dead because it can't move and hits on 6's.

Also, nobody with any sense will ever charge a baneblade hull unless it's with something that wouldn't care about the overwatch to begin with, like Magnus or a Knight.

Could work it like that. Toss the astropath to give it a 2+. Just run it down the middle of somewhere and just wreck face.

Would you see it at top tables? Nope! But who cares! W

Doctoralex wrote:
What do you guys think of a 'budget' super-heavy in the form of a Stormsword with 4x Lascannon/Twin Heavy Bolter Sponsons?

Personally I think it is a good balance between a high priority target without putting too many eggs in one basket. It is also quite versatile in it's killing power.
And while the Heavy Flamer sponsons might be more tempting, the enemy will likely try to charge at 9" away from it to avoid the overwatch. Meanwhile, 9x heavy bolters in overwatch will still hurt quite a bit.

Mostly don't like it, because as with most superheavy tanks the IG has, it's not flexible. You get 4-5 shots most of the time, and half of those will hit if you're stationary and above 50% wounds. So yay, 2-3 hits from a 500+ point tank's main gun? You won't threaten normal infantry, you can hurt elite infantry (although those are still quite inefficient targets), so larger baddies are probably the best target. The Shadowsword is much better in these cases because of S16, AP-5 and 2d6 damage.

The problem I have with most of them is that there are better choices. If I want a superheavy that deals with vehicles, I take the Shadowsword because it's by far the best, and because a maximum of 40 points difference is not enough to dissuade me price wise. If I want to deal with lighter infantry, the Stormlord could be attractive because it has a lot of shots (or the Macharius Vulcan). I'd maybe take the Baneblade or Hellhammer if I wanted some weird jack of all trades, but probably not.

Anyone else here find vox Casters to be a waste of points? I have yet to use them in a single game of 8th, whereas they used to be a must-have. It would cost 30pts to load up six infantry quads. That's the price of another Company Commander. I would rather have the two extra orders so that every squad can receive an order per turn. Currently I take 4 Company commanders and sit each one within barking range of 2-3 squads.

So, with this in mind, have you found them to be useful?
How many points do you think they are actually worth?
Do you think their effect should change?

They're worthless now. Maybe if they extended the range to unlimited, (highly unlikely) they might be worth 5 points.

I find orders most useful near my heavy weapons squads since I park Harker by them to reroll 1s to hit and use orders to reroll 1s to wound. They can't take voxes so even less reason for them to cost 5 points.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
They're worthless now. Maybe if they extended the range to unlimited, (highly unlikely) they might be worth 5 points.

I'd still never take them. For the points I'd spend on them I could just buy another Company Commander or two to accompany the units farthest from my normal commanders.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
They're worthless now. Maybe if they extended the range to unlimited, (highly unlikely) they might be worth 5 points.

Unlimited range might make me change my mind. But even then, 5 points adds up over multiple squads. Especially if you don't use conscripts. It might be a fair trade-off.
As they are, they are worth 1-2 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
They're worthless now. Maybe if they extended the range to unlimited, (highly unlikely) they might be worth 5 points.

I'd still never take them. For the points I'd spend on them I could just buy another Company Commander or two to accompany the units farthest from my normal commanders.

1-2 points and unlimited range and I might consider them.

If they lifted the requirement for a Vox Caster to be on the receiving end of the order, and simply let an officer standing within 3" of a Vox Caster give orders up to 18" I would use them, but having to have one on the receiving end is just nonsensical and makes them too pricey. Look at the design of a Vox Caster, with the big side mounted speaker. A Vox Caster (i.e voice caster/thrower) isn't a radio transmitter/receiver it's like a big man mounted megaphone, why would there have to be one on the other end for it to work?

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
If they lifted the requirement for a Vox Caster to be on the receiving end of the order, and simply let an officer standing within 3" of a Vox Caster give orders up to 18" I would use them, but having to have one on the receiving end is just nonsensical and makes them too pricey. Look at the design of a Vox Caster, with the big side mounted speaker. A Vox Caster (i.e voice caster/thrower) isn't a radio transmitter/receiver it's like a big man mounted megaphone, why would there have to be one on the other end for it to work?

At one point (3rd edition) they were known as "comm-links" and did not have a loud-speaker incorporated. Back then they were used to transmit the officer's leadership value to a distant (ie unlimited range!) squad for morale purposes. They still had this mechanic in 4th but had their name changed to "vox-caster". This is when the plastic Cadians arrived with the well-known loud-speaker attached to the device. 5th is when they were repurposed for supporting orders rather than morale checks. This is also when an effective range became a reality for them. Despite this, they were useful for passing LD checks for orders.

All this aside, they are BOTH a Transmitter/receiver and megaphone (on the cadian sculpts anyhow). It makes total sense to have a receiver, because there is no guarantee you will hear that tiny loudspeaker from far away over the din of battle.

All that being said, they are worth no more than 1pt in their current incarnation.

I didn't know the history of them, that leaves them in a bit of a twilight zone like the grenade launcher as though GW just doesn't know what to do with it.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
I didn't know the history of them, that leaves them in a bit of a twilight zone like the grenade launcher as though GW just doesn't know what to do with it.

Still think the solution for the GL is to give it utility rounds. Something like smoke for a friendly infantry unit that hasnt fired yet. Or a flare round for nightfight scenarios. Would probably need a points increase but at least at that point youre getting to make an actual choice between utility and damage.

If I had to change just its stats itd be to making shots 2D3 or 1+D3 on the frag portion so it's not guaranteed to be worse than just having an extra lasgun FRFSRF.

If plasma went up to, say, 12pts then would the grenade launcher see play? I agree the frag rounds seem pretty useless but the Krak rounds might have a place?

 DoomMouse wrote:
If plasma went up to, say, 12pts then would the grenade launcher see play?

No.

Even if you increase its cost, plasma at least has a purpose.

What exactly is the optimum target for a Grenade Launcher? An Ork Nob maybe? Though even then there's a decent chance that you won't roll enough wounds to kill it. And the less said about its secondary attack, the better.

Bear in mind that you take special weapons to either give the squad a chance against harder targets (Plasma or Melta) or else to increase its anti-infantry function (Flamers). Grenade Launchers just don't help with either of these - they lack the strength or AP to be effective against armoured targets or vehicles, and they lack the number of shots to be effective against infantry (even the secondary mode is inferior to a standard lasgun with FRFSRF).

The issue isn.t with plasma - it's with Grenade Launchers being useless weapons with no role or purpose and stats that look like they were determined via a dart-board.

Hello fellow commanders, commissars and psykers! Got a tactical question for you

How do you deal with the fact, that there is now quite a lot units/armies, which can benefit from "-1 to attackers hit rolls"?

Most of the Guard units have 4+ to hit.
If you move with heavy (true for a lot of vehicles), -1 to hit.
If you are damaged, -1 or even -2 to hit.
If your opponent has the right ability/psychic power/stratagem/legion trait/chapter trait/support unit, another -1 to hit.

There is no thing, no ability, no order, no spell, which would give us +1 to hit (i dont play with forge world). So, you can easily end up with your heavy weapon guys and tanks not being mobile and still hit only with a roll of 6 (or not being able to shoot at all...)..

Well, since guard is quite a strong army, how do you usually deal with this problem, commanders?

Are people still using Searchlights now that the FAQ is out that they don't stack and only affect infantry?

People are really underselling the Baneblades in this page.

They are all quite good. I have six companies now of various types.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
People are really underselling the Baneblades in this page.

They are all quite good. I have six companies now of various types.

Do your opponents just not bring enough anti armor? Like, I just have not been impressed at all fighting them. Once you do 14 damage to one, it's basically stuck in place. Even before that, moving is a dicey proposition. Further, their huge model size makes maneuvering into position on terrain dense boards even harder.

I'd like to see how they do paired with a salamander command vehicle, but they just seem like paper tigers to me. I'd rather fight a baneblade hull over magnus or a knight any day. Hell id rather fight a baneblade than the yncarne after yesterday's game.

I run three vehicles.

Two move forwards to get into melee, one sits back and covers them without moving. They all concentrate their firepower on one AT threat at a time until it is dead or crippled, then move on.

When the two assault tanks make it to the enemy lines and crash into them, the third tank begins to move up, utilizing the not-inconsiderable mobility of the Baneblade and its ilk to get where it needs to go.

The tendency of players to pack all their AT in a few packages (e.g. 5 marines with 4 lascannons in a devastator squad instead of 20 marines with 4 lascannons in 4 Tac squads, or a Vendetta with six lascannons) means disabling their anti-tank is comparatively easy - usually I will lose/have crippled one vehicle by turn 2 or 3, then their AT is disabled. By the end of the game I usually lose/have crippled another vehicle in the enemy's last stand where they pile everything into a phalanx and goes for it, but by turn 4 my third follow-up vehicle obliterates the straggling survivors of the assault by the first two vehicles.

Last game I had 3 Stormhammers, 6 barebones Scion squads, and 4 HQs for a total of 12 CP at 2k in 13 drops.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I run three vehicles.

Two move forwards to get into melee, one sits back and covers them without moving. They all concentrate their firepower on one AT threat at a time until it is dead or crippled, then move on.

When the two assault tanks make it to the enemy lines and crash into them, the third tank begins to move up, utilizing the not-inconsiderable mobility of the Baneblade and its ilk to get where it needs to go.

The tendency of players to pack all their AT in a few packages (e.g. 5 marines with 4 lascannons in a devastator squad instead of 20 marines with 4 lascannons in 4 Tac squads, or a Vendetta with six lascannons) means disabling their anti-tank is comparatively easy - usually I will lose/have crippled one vehicle by turn 2 or 3, then their AT is disabled. By the end of the game I usually lose/have crippled another vehicle in the enemy's last stand where they pile everything into a phalanx and goes for it, but by turn 4 my third follow-up vehicle obliterates the straggling survivors of the assault by the first two vehicles.

Last game I had 3 Stormhammers, 6 barebones Scion squads, and 4 HQs for a total of 12 CP at 2k in 13 drops.

That explains it, my AT is coming from scions, mixed hwts, company command squads with a single lascannon each, and 2 leman russes. They haven't been able to nullify it all before getting made combat ineffective from damage.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I run three vehicles.

Two move forwards to get into melee, one sits back and covers them without moving. They all concentrate their firepower on one AT threat at a time until it is dead or crippled, then move on.

When the two assault tanks make it to the enemy lines and crash into them, the third tank begins to move up, utilizing the not-inconsiderable mobility of the Baneblade and its ilk to get where it needs to go.

The tendency of players to pack all their AT in a few packages (e.g. 5 marines with 4 lascannons in a devastator squad instead of 20 marines with 4 lascannons in 4 Tac squads, or a Vendetta with six lascannons) means disabling their anti-tank is comparatively easy - usually I will lose/have crippled one vehicle by turn 2 or 3, then their AT is disabled. By the end of the game I usually lose/have crippled another vehicle in the enemy's last stand where they pile everything into a phalanx and goes for it, but by turn 4 my third follow-up vehicle obliterates the straggling survivors of the assault by the first two vehicles.

Last game I had 3 Stormhammers, 6 barebones Scion squads, and 4 HQs for a total of 12 CP at 2k in 13 drops.

That explains it, my AT is coming from scions, mixed hwts, company command squads with a single lascannon each, and 2 leman russes. They haven't been able to nullify it all before getting made combat ineffective from damage.

Then your opponents are bad. Yesterday I played a list that had 5 LRBTs/ basilisks, no wyverns, a HWT squad, six infantry squads with lascannons, and a Vendetta for antitank.

By the end of the game I had one vehicle left with 0 wounds suffered, the other two dead, and most of my scions and 2 HQs left.

The thing I would do against your list is go for melee, including using my smoke generators (since as you rightly point out, Baneblade moving and shooting is meh). We only need 2 turns to get across the table, I can usually go first, so smoke generation for the one turn is all I need before tying a huge amount of stuff up in melee because of the Baneblade's massive footprint and the ability of the covering Baneblade to blow holes in most screens

 Lothar wrote:
Hello fellow commanders, commissars and psykers! Got a tactical question for you

How do you deal with the fact, that there is now quite a lot units/armies, which can benefit from "-1 to attackers hit rolls"?

Most of the Guard units have 4+ to hit.
If you move with heavy (true for a lot of vehicles), -1 to hit.
If you are damaged, -1 or even -2 to hit.
If your opponent has the right ability/psychic power/stratagem/legion trait/chapter trait/support unit, another -1 to hit.

...

Well, since guard is quite a strong army, how do you usually deal with this problem, commanders?

Anything at BS 3+ will do better as the -1 only cuts their firepower by 1/4 rather than 1/3 for BS4+. Vets, tank commanders, pask and scions are good. Re rolling ones is also less effective against -1 to hit targets slightly. the

Also bear in mind that plasma overheats more easily against these guys so it's not the ideal target. (Though plasma is so good for its points that it's not a bad option)

You can often mitigate the BS -1 e.g. by deep striking within 12 inches of a raven guard space marine squad. Plasma scions and rough riders are great if you don't have to overheat.

Much of our fire support is efficient enough just to shoot at them anyway - mortar squads and lascannons are still good even with a damage cut.

 Lothar wrote:
Hello fellow commanders, commissars and psykers! Got a tactical question for you

How do you deal with the fact, that there is now quite a lot units/armies, which can benefit from "-1 to attackers hit rolls"?

Most of the Guard units have 4+ to hit.
If you move with heavy (true for a lot of vehicles), -1 to hit.
If you are damaged, -1 or even -2 to hit.
If your opponent has the right ability/psychic power/stratagem/legion trait/chapter trait/support unit, another -1 to hit.

There is no thing, no ability, no order, no spell, which would give us +1 to hit (i dont play with forge world). So, you can easily end up with your heavy weapon guys and tanks not being mobile and still hit only with a roll of 6 (or not being able to shoot at all...)..

Well, since guard is quite a strong army, how do you usually deal with this problem, commanders?

Cyclops demo vehicles. I run 2.

Heavy Flamers.

Close combat. (Bullgryns, powerlifter sentinels)

Mass shots