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.

 Ailaros wrote:
But they're ordnance, which makes everything else snap fire. Plus, this has some decent anti-flier (though I don't know if it's necessarily the best outside of the vendetta), but it doesn't seem to handle non-fliers very well.

S8 Ordinance isn't exactly bad against transports and stuff.

As you can tell, it's not good. But it's the best you can take. More survivable than hydras/HWSs, can transport stuff, and is more mobile than anything else, more easily allowing rear armor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happygrunt wrote:


And if your opponent won't play if you use Forgeworld?

As much as that official 40k stamp helps, its no good if your local gaming group just won't play you if you bring those units. I can argue all I want, but if they refuse to play I am out of luck.
A lot of tournaments still don't let people take Forgeworld, which is another problem.

Vendettas, unless you have a ton of extra lascannons lying around (which I don't) or are an excellent scratch builder, are $91 a pop. Hardly an affordable option.

I do fully embrace allies, but I can see why Ailaros might not be able to take Forgeworld or Vendettas.

I try not to let irrational, disillusioned LGS players rule my listbuilding.

People complain too much that "Oh, players at my LGS don't use FW, so I won't."

Take the initiative and start a change. Someone has to.

 Happygrunt wrote:
And if your opponent won't play if you use Forgeworld?

Then you make a house rule of your own and tell them they're not allowed to play the spam lists that give you trouble. If they refuse, don't play against them. It's massive hypocrisy to insist on being allowed to bring any spam list you like but refuse to allow official rules that you don't like that might allow your opponents to stand a chance against you.

(Of course I prefer a simpler approach. My army contains FW units. I do not change it. If you don't like it, I don't play against you.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:
And if your opponent won't play if you use Forgeworld?

Then you make a house rule of your own and tell them they're not allowed to play the spam lists that give you trouble. If they refuse, don't play against them. It's massive hypocrisy to insist on being allowed to bring any spam list you like but refuse to allow official rules that you don't like that might allow your opponents to stand a chance against you.

(Of course I prefer a simpler approach. My army contains FW units. I do not change it. If you don't like it, I don't play against you.)

Not allowing FW isn't exactly a houserule. It's more RAW from the BGB than allowing them.

 TheCaptain wrote:
Why not give the least used option in the entire codex some love? Under such strict parameters, it's probably legitimately the best choice.

Yeah, but if it's legitimately the best choice then the outcome is inevitable. The Valkyrie won't get the job done, and he'll just come to the conclusion that the situation is hopeless and it's time to pick a new army. He might as well save the cash and not bother buying the Valkyrie models.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Happygrunt wrote:
And if your opponent won't play if you use Forgeworld?

Then you make a house rule of your own and tell them they're not allowed to play the spam lists that give you trouble. If they refuse, don't play against them. It's massive hypocrisy to insist on being allowed to bring any spam list you like but refuse to allow official rules that you don't like that might allow your opponents to stand a chance against you.

(Of course I prefer a simpler approach. My army contains FW units. I do not change it. If you don't like it, I don't play against you.)

Pretty much this.

Think about it. If the guy is ready to refuse a game against you because you use a few FW units;

A. He doesn't exactly sound like a sporting opponent I'd be interested in playing

B. Then by the same logic you can refuse a game if he doesn't let you do so. Clearly he/she is ready to give up the opportunity to play, so call their bluff. They'll either cave in, or lose an opponent.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Not allowing FW isn't exactly a houserule. It's more RAW from the BGB than allowing them.

No it isn't. GW has explicitly said that FW is part of 40k. End of discussion.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Not allowing FW isn't exactly a houserule. It's more RAW from the BGB than allowing them.

False.

 TheCaptain wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Not allowing FW isn't exactly a houserule. It's more RAW from the BGB than allowing them.

False.

Show me in the 40k rulebook than. I won't hold my breath

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Not allowing FW isn't exactly a houserule. It's more RAW from the BGB than allowing them.

False.

Show me in the 40k rulebook than. I won't hold my breath

The statement is in every recent Imperial Armour book, which are official GW products. The fact that the paper copy of the core rulebook doesn't include it is meaningless, unless you refuse to play with any of the FAQs or errata that GW has published, which also aren't contained in the paper copy of the core rulebook.

Hmm, so if any product that says its 40k official is 40k official, that means it's official?

Excuse me, I'm going to go write a fandex now and claim my own rules are legal...

In any case, this is all grossly beside the point.

 Peregrine wrote:


The statement is in every recent Imperial Armour book, which are official GW products. The fact that the paper copy of the core rulebook doesn't include it is meaningless, unless you refuse to play with any of the FAQs or errata that GW has published, which also aren't contained in the paper copy of the core rulebook.

Standard response to this usually consists of:

>Nuh uh! [proceeds to cite outdated permission-urgings from old books]

>Well it's still not in the rule book [thereby reverting to a lack of logic in defense]

>Well my gamestore players still don't like it [Which is your own fault for not encouraging and introducing it well]

 Peregrine wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


Not allowing FW isn't exactly a houserule. It's more RAW from the BGB than allowing them.

False.

Show me in the 40k rulebook than. I won't hold my breath

The statement is in every recent Imperial Armour book, which are official GW products. The fact that the paper copy of the core rulebook doesn't include it is meaningless, unless you refuse to play with any of the FAQs or errata that GW has published, which also aren't contained in the paper copy of the core rulebook.

Actually the BGB directly says to use the Codexes. It says nothing about IA books. Using a supplement that is not even mentioned by the main rules is questionable at best.

 Ailaros wrote:
Hmm, so if any product that says its 40k official is 40k official, that means it's official?

Excuse me, I'm going to go write a fandex now and claim my own rules are legal...

In any case, this is all grossly beside the point.

If GW themselves release it and say so, then yeah. Yeah it is.

Something like this

1) Focus even more on infantry hordes, bring so many bodies that tank/flyer spam lists can't even hope to kill them all, and camp your "home" objectives. It's boring (you'll just pull models off until the game ends and then hopefully win on objectives), it's likely to force you to play for a draw, and it sucks if you have an odd number of objectives and your opponent gets to place first, but if you can't hold objectives as it is then it's your only hope to win with foot hordes.

You should un-think a lot of what changed your list when 6th came out. Go back to your roots.

Get commissars back in your list. Get an Aegis. Get more boots and more guns.

Commissar Lord Leading 40-50 conscripts
2 x 40 man blobs with 2 commissars with axes, cheap autocannons and grenade launchers firing on the move.
4-6 Lascannon HWSs hiding behind a defence line and in area terrain going to ground soaking up firepower with a command squad and chenkov.

You keep saying this will not work in theory, give it a try in reality.

Ashwaster wrote:
Something like this

1) Focus even more on infantry hordes, bring so many bodies that tank/flyer spam lists can't even hope to kill them all, and camp your "home" objectives. It's boring (you'll just pull models off until the game ends and then hopefully win on objectives), it's likely to force you to play for a draw, and it sucks if you have an odd number of objectives and your opponent gets to place first, but if you can't hold objectives as it is then it's your only hope to win with foot hordes.

You should un-think a lot of what changed your list when 6th came out. Go back to your roots.

Get commissars back in your list. Get an Aegis. Get more boots and more guns.

Commissar Lord Leading 40-50 conscripts
2 x 40 man blobs with 2 commissars with axes, cheap autocannons and grenade launchers firing on the move.
4-6 Lascannon HWSs hiding behind a defence line and in area terrain going to ground soaking up firepower with a command squad and chenkov.

You keep saying this will not work in theory, give it a try in reality.

Literally none of this is a good idea.

You should un-think a lot of what changed your list when 6th came out. Go back to your roots. Get an Aegis.

That was funny to me.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Hmm, so if any product that says its 40k official is 40k official, that means it's official?

Excuse me, I'm going to go write a fandex now and claim my own rules are legal...

In any case, this is all grossly beside the point.

If GW themselves release it and say so, then yeah. Yeah it is.

So I can bring in LoTR as GW released it? cool fear the Nazghul!

 Ailaros wrote:
Hmm, so if any product that says its 40k official is 40k official, that means it's official?

Can we please not waste time on stupid arguments like that?

Any product published by GW that says it's official is official.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Actually the BGB directly says to use the Codexes. It says nothing about IA books. Using a supplement that is not even mentioned by the main rules is questionable at best.

The printed copy of the rulebook isn't the only source of rules. Just like GW publishes errata and codex updates through their website (and good luck convincing anyone to ignore them) GW has the right to publish later books which add on to the printed rulebook. This is exactly what they have done by saying "this is official and part of standard 40k" in the relevant books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
So I can bring in LoTR as GW released it? cool fear the Nazghul!

Oh FFS. Is it really that hard to understand the difference between a GW product which explicitly says "part of standard 40k" and an entirely separate game system?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Hmm, so if any product that says its 40k official is 40k official, that means it's official?

Excuse me, I'm going to go write a fandex now and claim my own rules are legal...

In any case, this is all grossly beside the point.

If GW themselves release it and say so, then yeah. Yeah it is.

So I can bring in LoTR as GW released it? cool fear the Nazghul!

Does it say 40k official? Because then yeah you sure can, big guy!

Oh wait, it doesn't, and your ridiculous faux-point just serves to demonstrate your inability to understand the discussion at hand.

Sucks being out of the loop I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

The printed copy of the rulebook isn't the only source of rules. Just like GW publishes errata and codex updates through their website (and good luck convincing anyone to ignore them) GW has the right to publish later books which add on to the printed rulebook. This is exactly what they have done by saying "this is official and part of standard 40k" in the relevant books.

If this wasn't the case, we'd still be in rogue trader.

Because correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the 5th edition rulebook said anything like "Use this book, codices, FAQs, and the 6th edition rulebook replaces everything in this one"

SO THE FIFTH EDITION BOOK IS STILL IN EFFECT YOU GUYS

/thread

flyers are skimmers, fortifications aren't allowed, and so on.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
Hmm, so if any product that says its 40k official is 40k official, that means it's official?

Can we please not waste time on stupid arguments like that?

Any product published by GW that says it's official is official.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Actually the BGB directly says to use the Codexes. It says nothing about IA books. Using a supplement that is not even mentioned by the main rules is questionable at best.

The printed copy of the rulebook isn't the only source of rules. Just like GW publishes errata and codex updates through their website (and good luck convincing anyone to ignore them) GW has the right to publish later books which add on to the printed rulebook. This is exactly what they have done by saying "this is official and part of standard 40k" in the relevant books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
So I can bring in LoTR as GW released it? cool fear the Nazghul!

Oh FFS. Is it really that hard to understand the difference between a GW product which explicitly says "part of standard 40k" and an entirely separate game system?

So arguing from a pure RAW point, using the Written rules found in the 40k 6th edition Rulebook you can't use FW models.

Hell even using the GW FAQ's and Erratas found in the link in my sig. Still nothing is to be found.

I've got a rubber stamp that says that, so yep.

 TheCaptain wrote:

Ashwaster wrote:
Something like this

1) Focus even more on infantry hordes, bring so many bodies that tank/flyer spam lists can't even hope to kill them all, and camp your "home" objectives. It's boring (you'll just pull models off until the game ends and then hopefully win on objectives), it's likely to force you to play for a draw, and it sucks if you have an odd number of objectives and your opponent gets to place first, but if you can't hold objectives as it is then it's your only hope to win with foot hordes.

You should un-think a lot of what changed your list when 6th came out. Go back to your roots.

Get commissars back in your list. Get an Aegis. Get more boots and more guns.

Commissar Lord Leading 40-50 conscripts
2 x 40 man blobs with 2 commissars with axes, cheap autocannons and grenade launchers firing on the move.
4-6 Lascannon HWSs hiding behind a defence line and in area terrain going to ground soaking up firepower with a command squad and chenkov.

You keep saying this will not work in theory, give it a try in reality.

Literally none of this is a good idea.

You should un-think a lot of what changed your list when 6th came out. Go back to your roots. Get an Aegis.

That was funny to me.

More of a "go back to having a 4+ save" maybe :-P

Without Chimeras, Flyers, Allies & Forgeworld I think you need to get more boots & guns, one way or another.

Ashwaster wrote:


Without Chimeras, Flyers, Allies & Forgeworld I think you need to get more boots & guns, one way or another.

I mean, yeah, because that's all that there is left. But it's still not a good idea.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
So arguing from a pure RAW point, using the Written rules found in the 40k 6th edition Rulebook you can't use FW models.

Fine. You also can't use any of the FAQs or errata or codex updates published by GW because they are not in the paper copy of the core rulebook or codices. Good lucky playing a functional game of 6th edition without them.

Hell even using the GW FAQ's and Erratas found in the link in my sig. Still nothing is to be found.

Hey guys, I looked in the space marine codex and can't find the rules for a Leman Russ so you can't use yours in your IG army.

I've got a rubber stamp that says that, so yep.

Yeah, because your insane ranting about what is legal has the same legitimacy as GW explicitly stating that FW rules are part of 40k.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


So arguing from a pure RAW point, using the Written rules found in the 40k 6th edition Rulebook you can't use FW models.

Hell even using the GW FAQ's and Erratas found in the link in my sig. Still nothing is to be found.

I've got a rubber stamp that says that, so yep.

No. There is no rule saying "FW Rules are not for standard 40k."

There, however, in an officially GW licensed rules supplement, exact writing saying that FW rules are for standard 40k.

So yeah. RAW. Kinda beat yourself up on that one.

I've been finding the tough stuff is hard to take down as well.As far as the tough units go, I can tell you what works for me. I have horrible luck with plasma as well, and my FLGS has been shifting in that direction as well. In fact, I'm starting to run 4 LRBT's as a starting point in my lists.


As far as the tough, multi-wound high thoughness stuff goes:
Take a CCS, plop four plasma guns on the thing and give the commander two plasma pistols. This squad also does the job of popping light transports, so you've got some versatility there. And when the chimera pops, that just means they can twin-link their shots against their target. It's cheap and will do its job.

I know you're fond of flamer-stormtroopers, I I find maxing out meltaside stormies give better results when some vehicle needs to be dead. Plus, the points saved gives you some options to put elsewhere in your list.
-------------------------

The real trick to both of these is that they are essentially one-offs. You need a durable base of fire to lob shells downrange. And, aside from one battle report where you went fishing for a turn two deathstrike launch, I gather you're not to fond of one-offs, and the only think I can think of that has a chance against fliers is a platoon or two full of lascannon heavy weapon teams.




Another idea off the top of my head is a full Al-rahem platoon with your choice of plasmas or meltas. Perhaps coming in on the flank as well will mess with their flyer's flight paths or give you some shots at the side or rear armor of the tough stuff. Then, you drop in your flamerthrower stormtroopers as well to support the incoming platoon. Heck, while you're at it, take Creed and go big, outflank TWO platoons two midigate the chances of coming in on the wrong side.

 Peregrine wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
So arguing from a pure RAW point, using the Written rules found in the 40k 6th edition Rulebook you can't use FW models.

Fine. You also can't use any of the FAQs or errata or codex updates published by GW because they are not in the paper copy of the core rulebook or codices. Good lucky playing a functional game of 6th edition without them.

Hell even using the GW FAQ's and Erratas found in the link in my sig. Still nothing is to be found.

Hey guys, I looked in the space marine codex and can't find the rules for a Leman Russ so you can't use yours in your IG army.

I've got a rubber stamp that says that, so yep.

Yeah, because your insane ranting about what is legal has the same legitimacy as GW explicitly stating that FW rules are part of 40k.

Noted, I can get along in 6th w/o the faq's we'd just have to houserule some stuff. Kinda like if we allowed FW...

Have you seen what GW considers 40k legal in codexes? I think I'd do just fine stamping stuff. (Again, I'd have to houserule to allow it though)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCaptain wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:


So arguing from a pure RAW point, using the Written rules found in the 40k 6th edition Rulebook you can't use FW models.

Hell even using the GW FAQ's and Erratas found in the link in my sig. Still nothing is to be found.

I've got a rubber stamp that says that, so yep.

No. There is no rule saying "FW Rules are not for standard 40k."

There, however, in an officially GW licensed rules supplement, exact writing saying that FW rules are for standard 40k.

So yeah. RAW. Kinda beat yourself up on that one.

Sorry nah it doesn't say that in the least. IIRC it says "40k Approved" not 40k legal

We go back to the rulebook, does it say you can use your IA book? Or only Codex?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Noted, I can get along in 6th w/o the faq's we'd just have to houserule some stuff. Kinda like if we allowed FW...

I didn't say just FAQs, I said errata and codex updates as well. Enjoy your broken game when I, for example, play my Tau army with a target lock and attempt to use it in my first shooting phase. Since we're playing with the printed rules only I now have to take a target priority test (which no longer exists), so the game breaks and can not continue. Oops.

And no, allowing FW doesn't require house rules. Banning it does though.

Have you seen what GW considers 40k legal in codexes? I think I'd do just fine stamping stuff. (Again, I'd have to houserule to allow it though)

Err, what are you talking about?

Sorry nah it doesn't say that in the least. IIRC it says "40k Approved" not 40k legal

Perhaps you should read the text explaining that little icon instead of just looking at the pretty pictures? It clearly states that the units marked with that icon are official and part of standard 40k.

We go back to the rulebook, does it say you can use your IA book? Or only Codex?

Who gives a about what the paper copy of the rulebook says? GW has a clear policy of updating the game and adding new rules through additional materials published later, which includes errata, codex updates, IA books, WD rules, etc. The rules for 40k include all of these updates.

Seriously guys? This FW stuff comes up in every topic like it's Marbo or something.

 kestril wrote:
Seriously guys? This FW stuff comes up in every topic like it's Marbo or something.

That's what happens when people who are terrified of admitting that their "no FW rules" policy is a house rule show up, everything is immediately derailed into nitpicking the exact wording of every sentence and making absurd arguments about how their new fandex also has to be legal. It would easily be solved if they'd admit that the very clear explicit statement from GW is that FW is part of 40k, and that they just have a personal house rule that they don't use it or play against it. But I guess that would be too much of a blow to their ego...

 Peregrine wrote:

Sorry nah it doesn't say that in the least. IIRC it says "40k Approved" not 40k legal

Perhaps you should read the text explaining that little icon instead of just looking at the pretty pictures? It clearly states that the units marked with that icon are official and part of standard 40k.

Told you.

 Peregrine wrote:

We go back to the rulebook, does it say you can use your IA book? Or only Codex?

Who gives a about what the paper copy of the rulebook says? GW has a clear policy of updating the game and adding new rules through additional materials published later, which includes errata, codex updates, IA books, WD rules, etc. The rules for 40k include all of these updates.

This statement reeks of ignorance and unwillingness to accept factual evidence, Mr. Dean

Confronted with overwhelming facts pro FW, you resort to the weakest argument still available. "The BGB doesn't say you can use it."

It doesn't say you can use blue dice. Doesn't say you can play in cargo shorts. Doesn't say you can play in sunglasses.

Now, you can houserule those mentioned matters, but in the case of FW, Games Workshop eliminates the need by providing an actual rule of inclusion.

Or do you want Phil Kelly to handwrite "Use FW too" in your rulebook for you?

 Peregrine wrote:


And no, allowing FW doesn't require house rules. Banning it does though.

Than break out your 6th ed. rulebook and show me where you can use the IA book, it clearly spells out codex. Is the IA book a codex? (nope)

I'm so happy our LGS owner doesn't allow FW for tourneys. Although if the BGB said they were legal he'd be more than happy to.