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.

Red_Lives wrote:

Stelek wrote:Since this isn't how this combat works in 5th, what's the point again?

ya about that how will ICs work in close combat in 5th?

Like 4th, but in a situation with a Flyrant and Stealers coming at you--you keep Abby out of combat with the Tyrant until he kills the stealers off, which usually won't take long. Termies can hang with the Tyrant for a round, and if they have a bunch of power fists odds are the Tyrants gonna go down.

How does one do this? Keep Abby at the back of your termies, and move him in during the counterattack. It's pretty easy really, but having a big unit of termies (or plague marines) to sit in makes assaulting any unit into Abby's friends a bad idea since it's usually a suicide move.

Stelek wrote:
Gotta dispute the theoryhammer too.

WS6 vs WS6 is not 4 hits off 6 attacks.

It's 3.

You're right. Except once Abaddon gets into base contact, he's no longer WS 6. He's WS 5.

Did you calculate in Abaddon's re-rolling of wounds? Not sure what the descending number of wounds is representing.

Yes.

Abby is WS7 base, bud.

Don't know why I thought that was 6. My bad. Well, in that case, you need a slightly different combo...all the WS-modifying stuff becomes redundant, and you need a model with feeder tendrils nearby. Same result.

Meh. I suppose. Do you often deep strike lictors near tyrants? Or run stealers with the tendrils? Just wondering, I don't myself.

insaniak wrote:

Democratus wrote:There are no more "Special Characters" in the new codexes.

Yes there are. Any character entry with an individual name, which represents a specific, unique individual is a special character.

Page 52 of the rulebook explains what a Special Character is. Requiring permission is something that is listed as applying to some characters... but isn't something that specifically makes them a special character.

No. Page 52 only recognizes that Special Characters can exist in a codex.

To determine which 4th edition codex characters are actually Special Characters, you must check the codex.

Old codexes...
Space Marines (pp.46-52): Kayvaan Shrike, Captain Lysander, Chaplain Cassius, Tigirius, and Marneus Calgar all have the property "Special Character" in their entries. All of the Special Characters require an army of at least 1500 points.
Tau Empire (pp. 42-47): Aun'Va, O'Shovah, and O'Shaserra have the property "Special Character" in their entries. All Special Characters require an army of at least 1500 points.
Black Templares (pp. 44-47): High Marshal Helbrecht and Chaplain Grimaldus have the property "Special Character" in their entries. All Special Characters require an army of at least 1500 poitns.

New codexes...
Looking at other 4th edition codexes we notice that there are characters that are not special characters.
Eldar (pp.50-57): None of the characters have the "Special Character" rule in their entry. No points limits required to play characters.
Dark Angels (pp.40-47): None of the characters have the "Special Character" rule in their entry. No points limits required to play characters.
Chaos (pp.46-57): None of the characters have the "Special Character" rule in their entry. No points limits required to play characters.
Orks (pp.57-63): Again we see that none of these characters have the "Special Character" rule in their entry. No points limits required to play characters.

So as you can see. There are no longer Special Characers in the new codexes. Don't expect to see any for the new C:SM coming out this Fall either. They're gone.

Stelek wrote:Meh. I suppose. Do you often deep strike lictors near tyrants? Or run stealers with the tendrils? Just wondering, I don't myself.

Now...no. But I thought we were talking 40K 5.

Actually, here's some true silliness. If my numbers are correct, the best anti-Abaddon unit in 40K 5 will be a broodlord + genestealer retinue.

For 270 points, you get:
Broodlord /w implant attack, toxin sacs, extended carapace
8 Genestealers /w extended carapace, feeder tendrils

Assuming they charge:
Broodlord gets 5 attacks, 3.75 hits, 2.5 wounds, 1.25 past the 4+ Inv. Doubled for implant attack, so 2.5 wounds.
Abaddon strikes, kills either the broodlord or the stealers.
Genestealers strike simo to Abaddon, with 24 attacks, 18 hits, 3 rends + 3 wounds, after saves equals 2 wounds.

So abaddon goes down, at the cost of either a squad (or most of a squad) of genestealers, or a broodlord. With a greater than 50% possibility of the broodlord killing Abbie before abbie gets to swing.

Of course, that assumes the charge. Should abbie charge, the numbers on the broodlord change a bit (2 wounds), but the genestealers have much less assault potential (1.33 wounds, for a total of 3.33. Not the best odds, but generally worth trying.

Well, that isn't how I have seen the broodlord run in 5th.

Broodlord, feeder tendrils + 11 Stealers, talons, Acid maw.

See the broodlord is a cheerleader. You usually protect him on your first turn charge by burying him at the back so no one can get into base with him.

He gives all the stealers 3+ to hit against anyone, and the 11 stealers...well, they have a field day.

11x4=44 attacks.

29 hits.

Against Chaos Marines with T4, that's 14.5 wounds of which 4.83 are rends and 9.67 wounds...and then you use the acid maw: 14.5 failed wounds become 7.25 wounds which cause 4.84 normal wounds and 2.41 which are rends and that gives you 7 rends and 15 wounds. Nothing to sneeze at, I assure you.

It's a very nasty unit I've had the mispleasure of being on the receiving end of from offtable reserves. Didn't make that mistake again.

Snikrot? Yeah, he can be nasty. Compared to this? Not even in the same league.

Before you ask, why no extra STR? It's only good against vehicles, and Tyranids can handle vehicles just fine in 5th without resorting to CC...where they don't do good anyway. Oh, and it gives you more failed wounds against all toughness values so you can add more rends in using the acid maws. A flaw which has been pointed out but not corrected...

Oh and this does kill Abaddon, if you can get to him. There's usually Thousand Sons puppy guarding him because they're quite hard to remove....and he's a huge disincentive to assaulting said Thousand Sons...like the sweet center the owl gets to in three bites, only you don't want to get to Abaddon.

He's not a happy camper and does not play well with others.

Democratus wrote:No. Page 52 only recognizes that Special Characters can exist in a codex.

To determine which 4th edition codex characters are actually Special Characters, you must check the codex.

Nonsense.

The Special Characters section in the rulebook explains that Special Characters are found in the codexes, yes. It also explains what a Special Character is.

Having a tag in the codex that says 'this is a Special Character' is not required. There is no such thing as a 'Special Character rule' that makes them a Special Character. If the character listed in the codex is a specific, unique individual rather than a generic character option, then it is a Special Character. It's that simple.

But just for the sake of pointing it out, the Eldar Codex does refer to special characters on page 21. The Dark Angels codex does so on page 23. The Chaos Codex on page 89. All in the section that explains that the army list contains various troop and character options, and assorted special characters...

Centurian99 wrote:

Stelek wrote:
Did you calculate in Abaddon's re-rolling of wounds? Not sure what the descending number of wounds is representing.

Yes.

I thought he re-rolls failed to hits. Am I off-base?

Antonin wrote:
I thought he re-rolls failed to hits. Am I off-base?

Yes.

Of course, at S8 that re-roll means he wounds 35/36 of the time against most things, instead of 5/6 of the time...

BL with adrenal +FT, stealers with ST.

BL wins init, stealers get enough attacks even if charged.

It has worked, and should only work better in 5th.

Though in 5th it will almost probably be worth tying up IC as much as possible with non scoring units and ignoring them - as I see it.

This brings to mind a very important question. My friend is going to field Abaddon, with or without my permission, since it is not required. However, since I am playing the Inquisition, my codex says I can't bring Celestine unless I field 2,000 or greater points.

So, because my codex hasn't been updated, I can't field one of my best characters, but he can do so with his?

(Still working on how to kill Abaddon. I'm thinking lots and lots of Exorcists firing on him and the termies he's grouped with. As someone pointed out, though; this isn't the place for tactics)

You are correct. Your codex limits the character you want to play. His does not.

When your codex is finally updated, this will most likely change.

His psychic power protection is only 4+ right?

Just mindwar from range with 2 farseers if eldar, if orks even better, just use old zogwort for the 50/50 insta-squig.

More than 1 turn from either of those sources should put some hurt on him.