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.

Pyrothem wrote:
So I guess our Prets, Stalker and The Traveler stay Dynestyless. Sigh, poor Traveler stuck at a sad 5" move and no spider rep love for the Stalker. So now a year+ wait for our codex.

It seems obvious that those units are intentionally excluded from Dynasty buffs. It's in the fluff. I would definitely not expect it to change with the new codex.

torblind wrote:


That didin't change though?

Ah ya my bad, just assumed there was a change since they included it. They just fixed the grammar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think it's better to go with the tesla under-slung for the CCB, it's cheaper and the only time the gauss is better is against multi wound units and even then it's not much better. So I'd just save the points, the extra shot and ability to fire at full BS make the tesla function fine on a unit that is going to be realistically moving every turn.

 Actinium wrote:
The barge is bs2+ so moving and shooting the gauss cannon is a 3+ same as destroyers. You could take a 2+ tesla but if its job is to follow destroyers around i figure having the same ideal shooting targets is a boon.

Fair point.
A CCB w/ GC & WS is practically the same cost as a D.Lord w/ WS & RO.
2 CCBs + 1 D.L is just over 500 points.
Those three HQs working with a couple of full strength Destroyer units would be pretty decimating.

torblind wrote:

 Punisher wrote:
I'm interested to see if the change to RP makes 20man blobs of warriors worse. Since it'll be harder to reanimate now if you have to remain in coherency with existing models.

That didin't change though?

It did change: reanimated models have to be placed in coherence with models that did not reanimate this turn.

Are you sure you're comparing the CCB to the right unit?

Instead of comparing it to the Destroyer Lord, should we perhaps compare it instead to the regular Overlord?

Aenar wrote:

torblind wrote:

 Punisher wrote:
I'm interested to see if the change to RP makes 20man blobs of warriors worse. Since it'll be harder to reanimate now if you have to remain in coherency with existing models.

That didin't change though?

It did change: reanimated models have to be placed in coherence with models that did not reanimate this turn.

Isn't that how it was originally? I think it was clear before that you can't reanimate a model and place it next to another reanimated model.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Aenar wrote:

torblind wrote:

 Punisher wrote:
I'm interested to see if the change to RP makes 20man blobs of warriors worse. Since it'll be harder to reanimate now if you have to remain in coherency with existing models.

That didin't change though?

It did change: reanimated models have to be placed in coherence with models that did not reanimate this turn.

Isn't that how it was originally? I think it was clear before that you can't reanimate a model and place it next to another reanimated model.

You cannot place next to another reanimated model, but within 2" of a model that was on the table at the start of the turn. For example: you have 1 Warrior alive in a 20-men unit. You roll for RP but you cannot place all the 19 of them (given you roll accordingly) if you can't place all 19 of them within 2" of the remaining Warrior. I don't know how many Warriors you can fit within 2" of a single one, and enemy units / obstacles will reduce that amount for sure.

 vipoid wrote:
Are you sure you're comparing the CCB to the right unit?

Instead of comparing it to the Destroyer Lord, should we perhaps compare it instead to the regular Overlord?

You could, but I was just thinking of HQ that go fast.
Though reconsidering it, they complement each other rather than compete.

Aenar wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Aenar wrote:

torblind wrote:

 Punisher wrote:
I'm interested to see if the change to RP makes 20man blobs of warriors worse. Since it'll be harder to reanimate now if you have to remain in coherency with existing models.

That didin't change though?

It did change: reanimated models have to be placed in coherence with models that did not reanimate this turn.

Isn't that how it was originally? I think it was clear before that you can't reanimate a model and place it next to another reanimated model.

You cannot place next to another reanimated model, but within 2" of a model that was on the table at the start of the turn. For example: you have 1 Warrior alive in a 20-men unit. You roll for RP but you cannot place all the 19 of them (given you roll accordingly) if you can't place all 19 of them within 2" of the remaining Warrior. I don't know how many Warriors you can fit within 2" of a single one, and enemy units / obstacles will reduce that amount for sure.

I understand that, and that's how it was before, wasn't it? Were people really playing it so that you can put reanimated models together? I understood that was forbidden from the get go.

 skoffs wrote:
You could, but I was just thinking of HQ that go fast.
Though reconsidering it, they complement each other rather than compete.

Yeah, I think they serve different roles - the Destroyer Lord is still the best one for buffing Destroyers (unless you only have one unit of them), whilst the CCB is going to be better for most other units.

I think I'll definitely pick the CCB over an Overlord if I can afford it though.

Old

When a model’s reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that has not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models.

FAQ

When a model’s reanimation protocols activate, set it up in unit coherency with any model from this unit that has not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models.’

They really just fixed a typo.

 vipoid wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
You could, but I was just thinking of HQ that go fast.
Though reconsidering it, they complement each other rather than compete.

Yeah, I think they serve different roles - the Destroyer Lord is still the best one for buffing Destroyers (unless you only have one unit of them), whilst the CCB is going to be better for most other units.

I think I'll definitely pick the CCB over an Overlord if I can afford it though.

I keep my char close to front (2") to use his heroic intervention. Its big advantage of all char.
I dont like CCB becouse he was so big and waste point for shooting weapon when i want cc hq.
For immo hq you dont need his mobility.
He can be good for qs spam army. Mobility help him ride with AB, stalkers or arks.
He also can be good for prets if they get dynasty.

 vipoid wrote:
I think I'll definitely pick the CCB over an Overlord if I can afford it though.

Main pros for Overlord: 4++, can take RO, benefits from cover.
Main pros for CCB: QS, faster, +3W, +1T, gun.
Worth the 50 point difference? Probably.
Just wish it could give TBs MWBD...

Kuguar6 wrote:

I keep my char close to front (2") to use his heroic intervention. Its big advantage of all char.

I don't understand why you can't do this with a CCB.

Kuguar6 wrote:

I dont like CCB becouse he was so big and waste point for shooting weapon when i want cc hq.

Fair enough. Personally I think our HQs need all the shooting they can get.

Kuguar6 wrote:

For immo hq you dont need his mobility.

That's debatable, I think. Especially if you're using multiple units of Immortals in your army.

 skoffs wrote:

Main pros for Overlord: 4++, can take RO, benefits from cover.
Main pros for CCB: QS, faster, +3W, +1T, gun.
Worth the 50 point difference? Probably.

Just a point but the CCB can take a RO as well. Might actually be the best character for it - since he can hang out with more expensive units, whilst still buffing an Immortal unit 12" away.

 skoffs wrote:
Just wish it could give TBs MWBD...

Or Praetorians.

Other pros to consider for the CCB.

Has Fly keyword which means he can leave assaults and still shoot. The D Lord is the only other HQ that can do this.

Having Fly keyword also means he can assault flyers, which is possibly a huge asset if flyer spam becomes a thing in the meta (which is almost a sure thing)

Having Fly keyword also means he can perch on top of buildings and avoid nearly all CC if he wants to.


Also the CCB is a vehicle.

He can be repaired with Spyders or Toholk. Spyders just got a big boost to their overall viability. Not only can Spyders repopulate the Scarab swarms that seem to be in everyone's list but they can also repair your Warlord and protect him from Psychic attacks. That's a lot of value.

Malygon wrote:
Old

When a model’s reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that has not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models.

FAQ

When a model’s reanimation protocols activate, set it up in unit coherency with any model from this unit that has not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models.’

They really just fixed a typo.

You are right, I didn't go back to read the original rule.

Well, I guess that the CCB could be revised in the OP tier list... It is quite solid now.

Cheap overlord and 10 immortals cause 30 hits for 274 points where 16 immortals cause 32 hits for 272 points.

Cheap CCB and 10 immortals cause 33 hits (30 carbine + 3 cannon) for 324 points and 19 immortals cause 38 hits for 323 points.

It's pretty close between pure troops or overlord support or CCB support, it's just kind of a sliding scale on shooting efficiency vs how much beef you want hiding in your troops.

 Actinium wrote:
Cheap overlord and 10 immortals cause 30 hits for 274 points where 16 immortals cause 32 hits for 272 points.

Cheap CCB and 10 immortals cause 33 hits (30 carbine + 3 cannon) for 324 points and 19 immortals cause 38 hits for 323 points.

It's pretty close between pure troops or overlord support or CCB support, it's just kind of a sliding scale on shooting efficiency vs how much beef you want hiding in your troops.

I think I'd come at it the other way. I'd take an Overlord and Destroyer Lord first, then add in the core units for my army. After that, I'll see if I have any points left over to upgrade the Overlord to a CCB.

FAQ on Understrength Units


Does this officially endorse the practice of putting 9 warriors + HQ in a Ghost Ark?

Don't forget the first part of that paragraph, though.

Each unit’s datasheet will describe how many models make up that unit. Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; if this is the case, you can still include one unit of that type in your army with as many models as you have available.

I am still not entirely sure if that means you can only field a single, understrength warrior unit or if you can have multiple warrior units but only one of them may be understrength.

It does, but it's still clear that you can't field an understrength unit if you own enough models to make it the minimum size, so I'm not sure a ghost ark is a good use of points for an army that only has 9 warriors total. The rule really benefits something like eldar though who can do something like take 3 wraithguard and 4 fire dragons in 1 wave serpent.

We could take something like a single wraith now though as a viable alternative to 3 scarabs as an objective squatter or 1 man shooting screen for a c'tan.

Another plus for the CCB is that his MWBD has a huge 12" range.

He can support remote drops of Deathmarks and Flayed Ones.

col_impact wrote:
Another plus for the CCB is that his MWBD has a huge 12" range.

He can support remote drops of Deathmarks and Flayed Ones.

and you could also (risk) moving 12" the turn before to help get to within 12" of them for next turn

The CCB change is huge, a lot of our tactics were based on having a slow HQ or a worthless HQ, or both in the case of taking a single Lord in point conscious lists. now that we can have an HQ that is tough, fast, buffs well, and has decent offense a lot of new options are open to us.

CCB + DLord + 2 x Destroyers w/heavy + DDA + gauss pylon might be the big new thing.

Make the CCB your Warlord and give him the Tenacious Survivor trait for a 6+ FNP for additional tankiness.

So hyped about CCB. They're not that amazing still, but it's nice for them to be a real option.

It's pretty comparative between them and the DLord imo. Better gun + Warscythe makes CCB better for doing damage but the 4++ is a huge boon for the DLord. One of each might be the coolest thing tho.

First thought for CCB is that he just needs a screen of scarabs and he makes DS'ing FO a lot more terrifying once he is positioned right.

Now we just need a point adjustment for FO.....

Also the idea that a CCB can't be targeted because it's behind tiny scarab bases is a bit silly. It's RAW and I intend to play it that way but it won't look right :p

 Klowny wrote:
First thought for CCB is that he just needs a screen of scarabs and he makes DS'ing FO a lot more terrifying once he is positioned right.

Now we just need a point adjustment for FO.....

Soyders with fabricator claws and a gloom prism start to look really good if you are running scarabs as a screen for a CCB.

col_impact wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
First thought for CCB is that he just needs a screen of scarabs and he makes DS'ing FO a lot more terrifying once he is positioned right.

Now we just need a point adjustment for FO.....

Soyders with fabricator claws and a gloom prism start to look really good if you are running scarabs as a screen for a CCB.

Yes they do, but I just realised scarabs are only 10" move and spyders are only 6", severely limiting the CCB's movement. A wraith screen on the other hand.....

 Klowny wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
First thought for CCB is that he just needs a screen of scarabs and he makes DS'ing FO a lot more terrifying once he is positioned right.

Now we just need a point adjustment for FO.....

Soyders with fabricator claws and a gloom prism start to look really good if you are running scarabs as a screen for a CCB.

Yes they do, but I just realised scarabs are only 10" move and spyders are only 6", severely limiting the CCB's movement. A wraith screen on the other hand.....

Wondering if it's worth the extra points for some Acanthrites. They are VERY hurty with their guns and blades... but at 60 points each with no way to buff them or keep them alive, I'm not sure.