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.

Madjob wrote:Feels kind of disingenuous to act as though the mount flamers are going to be so reliably in range. Both units have 12" movement and have no issues advancing however they like, but the Sulfur hounds suffer from 4" less range. Add to that the Sterilyzors move freely thanks to Fly, and the ideal condition of all models firing will be realized by the Sterilyzors far more frequently than the Sulfur hounds.

That's why I said the higher output of Suplhurhounds might or might nt balance out with the increased mobility, utility and range of Sterylizors.

dadamowsky wrote:Sulphurhounds will be very very good IMO in the midfield for a single reason - to diminish the Toughness of the enemy. Any enemy model in 3" including <Vehicles>. Take a look at Rad-Saturated's secondary: Luminary Suffusion.

The con is obvious, the FW does promote <Infantry> over <Cavalry>. Also, I'm not sure whether it will be reworded to exclude <Vehicles> or not in FAQ. Yet I still see a value in small Sulphurhounds units to bring an unpleasant gift to anything they happen to be in range of 3". A gift that affects their own S4 weaponry as well as your gunline's ability to wound.

We are in the same noospheric wavelegth that's what I talked about before. That combo offers something new that no other unit can easily provide (pray for no FAQ though).

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Its not modeling for advantage. ITS MODELING AS INTENTED BY GW.

I'd much rather not have to deal with carrying a flyer base, thats the advantage i'm looking for.

Then you picked the wrong unit.
And yeah, it is modeling for advantage. If you cannot understand that the term means "picking a modeled format that gives you an advantage"? That's on you.
But a reasonable person would at least make some damn effort to make it clear where the Archaeopter would be if it were modeled in flight. Whether it be a piece of a tower that the Archaeopter has landed near or some other kind of scenic piece that can be placed if any kind of contesting comes up. Which it will, because it's unreasonable to expect people to be okay with it...especially if you're running the bomber which let's be honest here, has no real reason to be modeled as landed since it is the only one that benefits most from constantly being on the move!

I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh

Totally missed that the heavy phosphor is listed as 0...
There is absolutely no way thats intended lol. Even without the mass of buffs were getting we can slap on dakkabots...that would just make them stupid overpowered...
And make fisticuffbots even worse as they'd cost MORE lol

 dadamowsky wrote:
I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh

I mean, according to GW's flowchart, 0pts HPB are their cost until they errata it. And the modeling isnt ridiculous. If a new player buys the plane, assembles it by following the instructions and plays with it on the ground, its a legal way to play it. TO's are free to do as they want when it comes to ruling it in their tournaments but these are the basic rules that GW gives for the plane: it can be built on the ground or not.

Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.

 dadamowsky wrote:
I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh

The difference is that people talked about the HPBs already. It's widely agreed that it's either a misprint or (less likely) that there's an errata coming for Robots. I said earlier that it's possible the powerfists will get "twin heavy phosphor blasters" listed as their replacement, while the Incendine Combustor can be replaced with a HPB.
Because remember "twin heavy phosphor blasters" is currently a thing that only is present on the Onager(probably will be on the Archaeopters as well) but for whatever reason they chose to have it as "two heavy phosphor blasters" instead.

Not sure why calling out modeling for advantage(which is what not even bringing the flyer base is, let's be 100% clear) is so contentious.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.

Oh come on, don't be silly. We're talking about someone moving it 70 inches then plopping it down an inch past a 6" wall - or even worse, inside a ruin - in a landed position even though it's in supersonic flight mode. Obviously there is no plausible way to argue it would be capable of doing that.

I mean if you want to play 65 point dakkabots and landed flyers in supersonic mode and you can find someone actually willing to play with you go for it...but I know if anyone tried that around here, they'd be quickly, very politely, but firmly told they were not a good fit and were not welcome back. 40k is a game that relies on players not abusing the good faith of other players, and both of these things firmly fall into that category. It's like twisting your tank turret or sponsons to a position it can draw LOS, firing, moving them back afterward, and then announcing that your opponent now cannot fire back at you.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 dadamowsky wrote:
I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh

I mean, according to GW's flowchart, 0pts HPB are their cost until they errata it. And the modeling isnt ridiculous. If a new player buys the plane, assembles it by following the instructions and plays with it on the ground, its a legal way to play it. TO's are free to do as they want when it comes to ruling it in their tournaments but these are the basic rules that GW gives for the plane: it can be built on the ground or not.

Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.

At this point I'm starting to wonder are you trolling me now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 dadamowsky wrote:
I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh

The difference is that people talked about the HPBs already. It's widely agreed that it's either a misprint or (less likely) that there's an errata coming for Robots. I said earlier that it's possible the powerfists will get "twin heavy phosphor blasters" listed as their replacement, while the Incendine Combustor can be replaced with a HPB.

Because remember "twin heavy phosphor blasters" is currently a thing that only is present on the Onager(probably will be on the Archaeopters as well) but for whatever reason they chose to have it as "two heavy phosphor blasters" instead.

I'd maybe buy that if this change was made in the vaccum. But in the context of the EW points table it doesn't make any sense - because it would have to mean Phosphor Carbine is worth 15pts. It's not - the only weapon that makes any sense of this list to be 15pts is HPB, that has been 15pts so far, and nothing else but HPB on this list qualifies. The very fact that HPB is worth 0pts and Phosphor Carbine is 15pts is a straight-up indicator that it is a misprint...

yukishiro1 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.

Oh come on, don't be silly. We're talking about someone moving it 70 inches then plopping it down an inch past a 6" wall - or even worse, inside a ruin - in a landed position even though it's in supersonic flight mode. Obviously there is no plausible way to argue it would be capable of doing that.

I mean if you want to play 65 point dakkabots and landed flyers in supersonic mode and you can find someone actually willing to play with you go for it...but I know if anyone tried that around here, they'd be quickly, very politely, but firmly told they were not a good fit and were not welcome back. 40k is a game that relies on players not abusing the good faith of other players, and both of these things firmly fall into that category.

if it can turn 90degrees while going at full speed, it can probably rotate towards the ground at the end of its movement.

Look, i'm just arguing that if its in the book, its not modeling for advantage.

if theres litterally no modifications to the OFFICIAL instructions, youre still doing it as it was intended by GW.

I'm gonna build it on the base with no stand just because it'll be easier to transport for me. And anyway, theres been guesses that LoS will get fixed with 9th edition. which is probably when i'll be able to get a game in because of quarantine

If you want to try to argue that nonsense about "no modifications to the OFFICIAL instructions"?

The "OFFICIAL instructions" will likely label it as "LANDED" mode.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dadamowsky wrote:

I'd maybe buy that if this change was made in the vaccum. But in the context of the EW points table it doesn't make any sense - because it would have to mean Phosphor Carbine is worth 15pts. It's not - the only weapon that makes any sense of this list to be 15pts is HPB, that has been 15pts so far, and nothing else but HPB on this list qualifies. The very fact that HPB is worth 0pts and Phosphor Carbine is 15pts is a straight-up indicator that it is a misprint...

Ehhh...the Phosphor Carbine is the 1:3 upgrade to the Sulphurhounds. I could totally buy them pricing it at 15 points.


If it were the 'standard' weapon for the squad? Maybe it would be 0.
The "Heavy Phosphor Blaster" change, I'm almost 100% sure, is relating to something that either isn't present or was meant to be coming with a 9E errata.

What do you guys think: the raider horses 1x6 or 2x3? And the same with the flamer batmens, 1x10 or 2x5? Cant decide

I'm looking at 3x3 for Raiders, myself.

To be clear, I have no problem with you building it on the ground. What I would have a problem with is if you then tried to insist I couldn't shoot at it after it moved in supersonic mode because of a 4" wall you plopped it down an inch past.

Modeling your models how you want is great. Many of my models are converted to some greater or lesser degree; every single one of my models is on custom bases. The result is that their heights vary (to a very small degree, usually 1-2mm) from the "stock" base heights. In any game with a new player or a competitive game, I always flag this for my opponent, and give him or her the choice of picking whether we should consider them to be their modeled heights or pretend like they're the height they would be on standard bases.

If I was bringing one of these flyers built on the ground, I'd do the same thing at the start of the game: give my opponent the choice of whether we wanted to consider it to really be on the ground for LOS purposes, or whether we'll consider it to be of the standard flyer height that we all know the model is really at when it's in flyer mode. That's just part of good sportsmanship. Good sportsmanship shouldn't change based on whether you technically modified the normal build instructions or not. The eldar night spinner / fire prism kit has a little antenna on the top that is labelled as an "optional" part that adds nearly an inch to the model's overall height. One of mine has it, the other doesn't, for aesthetic reasons. Technically, this would mean that if they are built as fire prisms, I could use the one with the antenna to draw LOS for linked fire mode, while keeping the others unshootable. This is technically within the rules, but it's the same kind of bad faith exploitation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Raiders and batmen both have terrible morale. 9th may change how morale works, but right now, big units of either seem pretty questionable. Although you do pay less of the "alpha" tax that way, especially for the sterylizors, whose alpha is just terrible compared to the normal ones.

Just popping in to ask a question; I did a search but can't seem to pin something down. What is a "Grator" in these lists?

Promise I did do a search and just couldn't find the genesis of this.

Thanks in advance!

yukishiro1 wrote:
To be clear, I have no problem with you building it on the ground. What I would have a problem with is if you then tried to insist I couldn't shoot at it after it moved in supersonic mode because of a 4" wall you plopped it down an inch past.

Modeling your models how you want is great. Many of my models are converted to some greater or lesser degree; every single one of my models is on custom bases. The result is that their heights vary (to a very small degree, usually 1-2mm) from the "stock" base heights. In any game with a new player or a competitive game, I always flag this for my opponent, and give him or her the choice of picking whether we should consider them to be their modeled heights or pretend like they're the height they would be on standard bases.

If I was bringing one of these flyers built on the ground, I'd do the same thing at the start of the game: give my opponent the choice of whether we wanted to consider it to really be on the ground for LOS purposes, or whether we'll consider it to be of the standard flyer height that we all know the model is really at when it's in flyer mode. That's just part of good sportsmanship. Good sportsmanship shouldn't change based on whether you technically modified the normal build instructions or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Raiders and batmen both have terrible morale. 9th may change how morale works, but right now, big units of either seem pretty questionable. Although you do pay less of the "alpha" tax that way, especially for the sterylizors, whose alpha is just terrible compared to the normal ones.

From the reaction i've seen, i thought people were against the very idea of it not being on a stand.

Honestly this problem stems from 40k not having good LoS rules. Imo, GW should borrow from Infinity and use something akin to their silhouettes.

I stopped caring about people's opinion when i modeled a melee knight on a more elevated base and people gave me gak for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gkazman wrote:
Just popping in to ask a question; I did a search but can't seem to pin something down. What is a "Grator" in these lists?

Promise I did do a search and just couldn't find the genesis of this.

Thanks in advance!

Its the Skorpius disintegrator.

 Hesselhof wrote:
What do you guys think: the raider horses 1x6 or 2x3? And the same with the flamer batmens, 1x10 or 2x5? Cant decide

i'm running 2x9 raiders

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 dadamowsky wrote:
I stopped being on track for past few days and we apparently are again at the ridiculous topic of modeling the plane on the ground for the purpose of LoS hiding... What's next - insisting that Heavy Phosphors Blasters costing 0 points are an intended change and we should play Kastelans for 65pts per model? smh

I mean, according to GW's flowchart, 0pts HPB are their cost until they errata it. And the modeling isnt ridiculous. If a new player buys the plane, assembles it by following the instructions and plays with it on the ground, its a legal way to play it. TO's are free to do as they want when it comes to ruling it in their tournaments but these are the basic rules that GW gives for the plane: it can be built on the ground or not.

Also, its not a conventinal supersonic flyer, its the only flyer that can move 90degrees mid-movement. Its not far fetched to say that it can zig zag over/through buildings while going at full speed.

What flowchart? The one that USED to be in FAQ? That's gone. Poof. Gone. Wiped out. Doesn't exist. Illegal to use.

U02dah4 wrote:

 Hesselhof wrote:
What do you guys think: the raider horses 1x6 or 2x3? And the same with the flamer batmens, 1x10 or 2x5? Cant decide

i'm running 2x9 raiders

Out of curiosity, what are you planning to use to proxy/convert for those?

Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...

Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.

Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol

Octovol wrote:
Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...

Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.

Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol

I can't agree more. Same guy that gave us LD6 across the board.

It's hardly the only book with useless custom traits. Hell, in the first PA book, they even managed to mess things up within the same book: craftworld eldar got excellent custom traits, and dark eldar got horrible ones, for no particular reason.

Octovol wrote:
Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...

Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.

Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol

And I think the only cavalry in the game who doesn't get a bump to T?

 Colonel Cross wrote:

Octovol wrote:
Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...

Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.

Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol

And I think the only cavalry in the game who doesn't get a bump to T?

I don't think Rough Riders get bonus Toughness either.

I have no idea how anyone would think the Custom Dogmas are useless, they just made Kataphron Breachers the most insane unit in the game.

Take the vehicle 6++ primary (useless) and the Arc Weapon baby tesla on 5s and 6s secondary. With a Dominus you're averaging 23 Hits out of 24 shots with the standard BS4+.

In melee, if that same Dominus has Prime Hermeticon, you're getting 45 Hits out of 36 attacks with the same WS4+.

Combine that with a Lucius Warlord for the +1 Invuln Canticle, the Servitor Maniple detachment, and the new Learnings of the Genetor WL trait you get a T5 W3 3+/4++/5+++ Infantry unit with obsec. You can further boost one unit to 3++ with Acquisition.

It's bonkers.

The thing is if, for example, a squad of rangers could take ALL Arc rifles, now we're in business there.

And if Suplhurhounds were using radium pistols...again boom.

if the buff to BSDT was re-roll morale and 9" then it's useful. The fact that a BSDT is only on vehicles is flawed by design though, take out vehicle and it explodes?

Now if multiple BSDT could stack, then again, we're in business, we have a lot of vehicles we have morale-weak troops, if it capped at +2 or +3 that gives us LD 9 troops with the danger that a vehicle could take them out, that's a calculated risk though. +1 LD on it's own isn't worth the risk.

And if Sulphurhounds are so proficient at pistols on horseback that they get to fire them when they advance, why couldn't we get that on Raiders with rapid-fire weapons?

It's not necessarily that the rules are all that bad, but that there's so few opportunities to benefit from them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pakman184 wrote:
I have no idea how anyone would think the Custom Dogmas are useless, they just made Kataphron Breachers the most insane unit in the game.

Take the vehicle 6++ primary (useless) and the Arc Weapon baby tesla on 5s and 6s secondary. With a Dominus you're averaging 23 Hits out of 24 shots with the standard BS4+.

In melee, if that same Dominus has Prime Hermeticon, you're getting 45 Hits out of 36 attacks with the same WS4+.

Combine that with a Lucius Warlord for the +1 Invuln Canticle, the Servitor Maniple detachment, and the new Learnings of the Genetor WL trait you get a T5 W3 3+/4++/5+++ Infantry unit with obsec. You can further boost one unit to 3++ with Acquisition.

It's bonkers.

Name another unit that benefits from all that. Go on, I'll wait. And I dont mean a variant (Destroyers) It's too narrow a bonus. Sure you cant have rules that benefit everything, but in our case everything is super specific to the point that you have to put all your eggs in one basket to really benefit.

Edited for pedantry pre-empt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, i'll leave what I said up there, but I realise i'm being a tad aggressive. Point I was trying to make is that we seem driven to make one unit our key to victory all the time. We spend so much time and effort to increase a single units effectiveness that it becomes a do or die race.

Those kataphrons will inevitably get shot off the table even with those buffs. Then what? All your cp and prep to make them better is gone. I'd much rather we had a broad spread of bonuses and buffs.

Octovol wrote:
Name another unit that benefits from all that. Go on, I'll wait. And I dont mean a variant (Destroyers) It's too narrow a bonus. Sure you cant have rules that benefit everything, but in our case everything is super specific to the point that you have to put all your eggs in one basket to really benefit.

Edited for pedantry pre-empt.

My point is that Admech arguably now have the single most durable, and potentially the strongest, unit or build at the moment and it's thanks to the custom forgeworld stuff. That doesn't mean everything is a viable option, but there's at least one unbelievably strong choice.

Edit: Good luck trying to shoot 3 full units of those off the board. Do you realize how much firepower you would need to do that?

Name another army that got benefits that are as conducive for making a themed force as these were.

I already ran tons of Rangers. I'm someone who played Skitarii, not War Convocation--the new custom traits are fricking awesome for me if I choose to use them...which I very seriously am in regards to doing a Triplex Phall force instead of the Stygies I usually run.

tbh i think the only custom traits i see used at ALL are tyranids.
I probably would have used some of these dogma combos but the base dogma Canticle boost is just way too good to pass up. Hell it even makes me think of using other dogmas besides Mars/Stygies for once (granted, those two are still top pick)
I legit thought about a proper Ryza list for some reason lol. I dont think it would work but the canticle made me start thinking about it.

Almost every single custom dogma trait only affects a couple of units, and a lot of them only affect 1. The arc weapon boost sounds amazing except theres only 3 units that even have them (vanguard, rangers, and breachers). If the flier was covered in Arc weapons instead of stubbers/heavy phospher i bet this would be an interesting trait, even would use the vehicle 6++ in that case.

Theyre actually worse than the ork subkultures, at least some of the subkultures do see play (grot mobz, boom boyz, tin headz). I'd be shocked to see any of these custom dogmas show up.
It almost feels like two people were writing this, one that hated admech and/or didnt understand them at all and another that LOVES admech. The cavalry are the only "average" thing we got, everything else is so wildly amazing or utter garbage its hilarious.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:

Octovol wrote:
Ya know the more I look at these new rules the more see traces of whichever fethwit they let write the first codex. Don't get me wrong the good stuff is good, almost like it was written by a different person, but the bad stuff...

Bonuses to Radium weapons -- oooh only 2 units have them.
Bonuses to rapid fire weapons - only 2 weapons.
1" extra movement on units that were intentionally 1" slower and also have long range weapons anyway.
Overwatch on a 5 or 6 - we already have that, in more than one place.
6++ on wounds - already had it.
Extra 3" on broad spectrum data tether range, we literally only take that for the extra +1 on the doctrine strat.

Like, get rid of this person already. They suck at rules writing! lol

And I think the only cavalry in the game who doesn't get a bump to T?

I don't think Rough Riders get bonus Toughness either.

Rough riders definitely didn't/dont and they are the only other T3 cavalry unit in the imperium.

RogueApiary wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:

 Hesselhof wrote:
What do you guys think: the raider horses 1x6 or 2x3? And the same with the flamer batmens, 1x10 or 2x5? Cant decide

i'm running 2x9 raiders

Out of curiosity, what are you planning to use to proxy/convert for those?

He is a millionaire.