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.

Hrm hrm?

I doubt it, what does dakka think?

The codex states 12 models. I'd say it can transport 12 models or the equivilent . The only restriction is on ogryns.

Also for those unfamiliar with the abbreviation he's asking can Power Armor / Terminator Armor grey knights embark on a valkyrie.

Thats what I was thinking, thats quite interesting aswell, flat-out 24", drop out, boom they're in CC.

Scout 24'', then move normally and deploy squad safely on your first turn... Ever seen what a squad of SoB with flamers do to the enemy deployment zone?

The only restriction to what gets in a valk/ven are:

FAQ:

Q. Can allied models in terminator armour,
such as Grey Knight Terminators, embark in
Valkyries/Vendettas?
A. No. The Valkyrie cannot transport Ogryns or
models of a similar size (such as Terminators).

So PaGK are able to hop in. But no to GKT's.

Karon wrote:Thats what I was thinking, thats quite interesting aswell, flat-out 24", drop out, boom they're in CC.

not quite. if you move flat out, you can only exit via deep strike and you can't assault. the next turn you'll be in CC but not that one.

You can move 24" with your scout move and get a turn 1 combat that way.

Still, it's not something you'd really want to do. Grey Knights aren't exactly beastly in combat, and there are cheaper ways to tie up a unit of devastators/broadsides/whatever.

warboss wrote:

Karon wrote:Thats what I was thinking, thats quite interesting aswell, flat-out 24", drop out, boom they're in CC.

not quite. if you move flat out, you can only exit via deep strike and you can't assault. the next turn you'll be in CC but not that one.

I think Spetulhu pointed out the strategy. You move flat out in your scout move, being sure to stay 12" away from the enemy. Then, on your turn, you deploy your troops. They move 6", firing their storm bolters. Then, they assault 6" with their nasty Nemesis Force Weapons.

Now the question - which comes first, Scouts or Sieze the Initiative? Usually you'd roll off, since the two coincide with the same part of play in the BRB. If the enemy does not sieze, it's all gravy. If they do, then you have your Vendettas in the range of meltas, assaults, etc. etc.

The way I read it scouts comes before Seize. It's because the language in Seize reads "just before the first turn starts" or something very similar to that, making me think that all "pre-game" actions come first.

Granted it's not actually very well laid out in the rule book.

willydstyle wrote:The way I read it scouts comes before Seize. It's because the language in Seize reads "just before the first turn starts" or something very similar to that, making me think that all "pre-game" actions come first.

Granted it's not actually very well laid out in the rule book.

Scouts says: "after both sides have deployed, but before the first player beings his first turn. . ."

Seize says: "just before the the player that should go first begins his first turn. . ."

Oddly enough, the "just" makes it sound like Seize is the very last thing that happens before anyone begins play.

Exactly.

Well, what do ya know...

I honestly had never read the Seize rule. I just skimmed Deployment because I had a "veteran" helping me with my first game. He said that you seize before you deploy.

Moral of the story: Read all the rules!

It's been my experience that vets get the rules wrong more often than not. It's generally not anything malicious, but just psychology preventing people from learning new rules well when they've already got the old rules down.

Totally agree willy.

I also play D&D and have for years. When 3E came out, my group had this mental block about having high AC instead of low AC. Now with 4E, they always forget that they can do something besides "just swing my sword."

How are PAGK not good in CC? They have like 3-4 s6 attacks on the charge, not counting the power wep on the Justicar (and probably melta bombs and some other bitz.

Especially with a vendetta putting down covering fire if it isn't already dead.

Even though the bird they fly in on can shoot, firing at the target you want to assault is usually a bad idea. You have to stop no closer than 12" from your intended target. 2" disembark, 6" move, that's 4" assault distance to the closest guy. It's very easy to pull the models in front from shooting casualties and leave your expensive squad just sitting there with their thumbs up their asses. Then the opponent's shooting phase rolls around and they evaporate. So yeah, unless there are more models in assault range than you could conceivably kill with your vendetta, don't shoot.

The GKs themselves aren't useful in combat because for what they do they're way too expensive. That's basically what's wrong with "pure" GK armies - crappy, overpriced, 3rd edition relics for troops.

A squad of 4 knights and a justicar is 150 points. Yes really. 150 points for 5 dudes in power armor. They get either +1 for charging or +1 for true grit, so in every round of combat that's 8 WS5 S6 attacks and 3 that also ignore armor.

That kind of power breaks crappy infantry. You'll kill guardsmen. You'll kill Eldar. You'll kill Tau. Anything with a 3+ save though, is tough enough to stand up to that kind of damage and then turn around and probably win combat. You cost twice as much as a tactical squad and you're still T4 with a 3+ save.

I'm not trying to say that GKs are terrible (ok, maybe a little) it's just that there are so many better units to use like this. Sisters or veterans with meltaguns, demo vets for some turn 1 meltabomb lovin are all excellent choices. They have a huge punch and are cheap enough to be disposable. Grey Knights... don't really have any of those qualities, and so are not useful in this application.

Now if you could use terminators... that would be worth doing.

Or... you have Veterans inside with whatever special weapons that suit your fancy = Win.

Over other overpriced options in the DH/WH codex IMO.

And, no use in talking about Termies riding the Ven/Valk, GW specifically went out of their way to say "NO".

Do we need two threads in progress simultaneously to discuss the original query?

G

Sanctjud wrote:The only restriction to what gets in a valk/ven are:

FAQ:

Q. Can allied models in terminator armour,
such as Grey Knight Terminators, embark in
Valkyries/Vendettas?
A. No. The Valkyrie cannot transport Ogryns or
models of a similar size (such as Terminators).

So PaGK are able to hop in. But no to GKT's.

GW FAQs are not official. Read their website: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018§ion=&aId=3400019

GW FAQs are GW "Studio House Rules". Emphasis on "House Rules". RAW says 12 models or the equivalent. Only restriction in on Ogryns.

Ironhide wrote:

Sanctjud wrote:The only restriction to what gets in a valk/ven are:

FAQ:

Q. Can allied models in terminator armour,
such as Grey Knight Terminators, embark in
Valkyries/Vendettas?
A. No. The Valkyrie cannot transport Ogryns or
models of a similar size (such as Terminators).

So PaGK are able to hop in. But no to GKT's.

GW FAQs are not official. Read their website: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat410004&categoryId=1000018§ion=&aId=3400019

GW FAQs are GW "Studio House Rules". Emphasis on "House Rules". RAW says 12 models or the equivalent. Only restriction in on Ogryns.

Right, and if you pull out a copy of the FAQ (INAT or otherwise) at a Tourney and say, "I know this isn't official, but here's what GW suggests." I'd say that more often than not, the tourney judge will say, "Okay." Rather than, "Well, I don't agree. Play it this way. . ."

You'd think that, but I've heard many a story of a TO not going by it.

Yes, it is possible to argue that the FAQ is not legal. It is equally possible to argue that the BRB is not legal, as the only thing legalizing it is itself.

thebetter1 wrote:Yes, it is possible to argue that the FAQ is not legal. It is equally possible to argue that the BRB is not legal, as the only thing legalizing it is itself.

You know, now that you mention it, there isn't any rules at all in the first edition rulebook telling me that I should use later editions of rulebooks as they come out...

...and the Pedobear is a highly recommended baby sitter...

Nowhere does it say the FAQs are unofficial. GW states that they are analogous to house rules the actual rules writers use. You are free to play how you wish but getting others to fall in line with your way of thinking is another matter altogether.

G