Switch Theme:

Astra Militarum: More Competitive in 8th Edition?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 jifel wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
Yet another random question - do you think Tank Commanders are worth their points, or is it better to just have cheaper, BS4+ Russes?

Also, does it make any difference which Leman Russ you're using?


I'd use tank commanders (especially pask) but you don't need all tank commanders. I currently run Pask and 2 normals. As to type, that matters a lot. Executioner, Battle Cannon and Punisher are all standouts (that's not in order) while the other 4 weapons are all situational or just flat out worse.


Isn't the Demolisher Cannon supposed to be one of the best weapons?

Also, is the Executioner Plasma Cannon really that good? I know rolls of 1 just do 1 Mortal Wound now (instead of d6), but it still seems little better than a Battle Cannon even when Overcharging.

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

 Colonel Cross wrote:
I've had crazy good success with battle Cannon, Lascannon, heavy Bolter tank commanders.

I like to run a punisher with 3 heavy flamers as a normal tank. I also give it track guards.

They have wrecked people.


The classic Russ is definitely back in vogue. Decentralising your AT lascannons helps with target priority and redundancy too. I am looking forward to a possible 198pt las/bolt annihilator though, that turret will be nice if updated. I also like Ambush russes with meltas, as it is the easiest way to get within 12" melta range. An ambushing melta commander ordering a fireball punisher forward with the Tallarn order is rather a fun surprise.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/18 15:38:07


The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I like the Tallarn option to (basically) guarantee yourself first turn. Not hard to make a Brigade list where only Conscripts can be shot if the other guy goes first. Use the dagger, stratagem, and scions to keep everything else in reserve.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Canada

I still think just more stock LRBTs with hull HB is the way to go, I do have to test it out, but 5 sets of HB's is halfway to a 6th LRBT.

I'm going to test out a Catachan Brigade + Spearhead with 5x stock LRBT and a Command Punnisher with 3x HB to see how it goes.

 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




The more I play around in Battlescribe, the more I realize how hard it is to make a bad IG list. Almost every concept can be made to work.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Canada

Anyone have experience running Yarrick in the new book? He still seems solid for the points. I'm thinking him behind a blob of conscripts will be a good way to tackle Celestine, just keep some of those 13 CPs handy to re-roll his 3+ recovery and strike her back with that power klaw.

 
   
Made in us
Rough Rider with Boomstick





Georgia

Okay so here's my thing with the Tallarn Strategem. It says <TALLARN> UNIT right? I keep hearing that you can use it to deepstrike three russes BUT, russes (and other IG vehicles) can be taken in units of up to three that have to be set up within 6" of each other and only act independently once set up on the battlefield . So couldn't IG deepstrike three russ/hellhound/sentinel/basilisk/wyvern SQUADRONS while having dirt cheap infantry hold the field to either counter not getting the first turn and hide our big guns from alpha strikes or get the close range heavy hitters in range as normally suggested for a alpha/beta strike? Its alot of points to put in reserve but thats potentially nine russes rolling out from behind lamp posts!

I haven't heard this mentioned once by anyone and can't have been the only person to catch it

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/18 19:38:58


Vorradis 75th "Crimson Cavaliers" 8.7k

The enemies of Mankind may employ dark sciences or alien weapons beyond Humanity's ken, but such deviance comes to naught in the face of honest human intolerance back by a sufficient number of guns. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Ir0njack wrote:
I haven't heard this mentioned once by anyone and can't have been the only person to catch it


There's a couple of pages of discussion on doing just that with Punishers/Demolishers to get them in range safely. Try it out and let us know how it goes, it's tough to say how well it works without actually fielding it.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Canada

 Ir0njack wrote:
Okay so here's my thing with the Tallarn Strategem. It says <TALLARN> UNIT right? I keep hearing that you can use it to deepstrike three russes BUT, russes (and other IG vehicles) can be taken in units of up to three that have to be set up within 6" of each other and only act independently once set up on the battlefield . So couldn't IG deepstrike three russ/hellhound/sentinel/basilisk/wyvern SQUADRONS while having dirt cheap infantry hold the field to either counter not getting the first turn and hide our big guns from alpha strikes or get the close range heavy hitters in range as normally suggested for a alpha/beta strike? Its alot of points to put in reserve but thats potentially nine russes rolling out from behind lamp posts!

I haven't heard this mentioned once by anyone and can't have been the only person to catch it


I believe it reads "Units" which yes, means you can start 9 tanks up front T1. My choice would be HellHounds as you can use this for clearing annoying conscripts and other infantry guarding characters, and also Russes if they were taken in a Spearhead so that you can stick them on objectives and get the benefit of their Obesc.

I'd do this:

3x HellHounds

3x Russes, maybe take advantage of Punisher cannons, Demolishers, Multi Melta sponsons.

1x 30 Conscripts to screen your Russes.

 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

You can't Ambush Commissars along with the conscripts though, so you would need to use the Dagger of Tu'sakh to stop conscripts just being moralled to death. Also, I think that ambushing with 9 is a bit overkill myself.

I've found I have to force myself to call it ambushing too. Referring to it as deepstrike or outflank is wrong, as it doesn't work like either of those abilities. Mainly, if I call it outflanking I may forget that I can do it from any of the four board edges, not just the side ones. It may be extreme but I would urge people not to use those terms as they are not really correct.

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in nl
Regular Dakkanaut





So, what do you people think of Tauroxes?

They dropped by 15 points, making them one of the cheapest transports in the game at 70 points while still rocking two Autocannons.

I think with the Tallarn doctrine, they can work quite nicely.

Only downside is that they don't come with Smoke Launchers (transports tend to advance and make us of them) and can't be upgraded with any of the new vehicle upgrades.
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH


More Dakka wrote:I still think just more stock LRBTs with hull HB is the way to go, I do have to test it out, but 5 sets of HB's is halfway to a 6th LRBT.

I'm going to test out a Catachan Brigade + Spearhead with 5x stock LRBT and a Command Punnisher with 3x HB to see how it goes.


That's my thought, especially for Catachans. The basic battle cannon is cheap and hits reasonably hard, with 8.5 shots a turn if going half speed.

I'm toying around with a heavy armor skew brigade with the LRBTs and hellhounds.

Doctoralex wrote:So, what do you people think of Tauroxes?

They dropped by 15 points, making them one of the cheapest transports in the game at 70 points while still rocking two Autocannons.

I think with the Tallarn doctrine, they can work quite nicely.

Only downside is that they don't come with Smoke Launchers (transports tend to advance and make us of them) and can't be upgraded with any of the new vehicle upgrades.


I quite like the basic Taurox. It's cheap, it's fast, and it's reasonably durable. Put a cheap infantry squad in it, hold and ojective, and pepper the enemy with autocannon shots.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Canada

 Trickstick wrote:
You can't Ambush Commissars along with the conscripts though, so you would need to use the Dagger of Tu'sakh to stop conscripts just being moralled to death. Also, I think that ambushing with 9 is a bit overkill myself.

I've found I have to force myself to call it ambushing too. Referring to it as deepstrike or outflank is wrong, as it doesn't work like either of those abilities. Mainly, if I call it outflanking I may forget that I can do it from any of the four board edges, not just the side ones. It may be extreme but I would urge people not to use those terms as they are not really correct.


Re the conscripts you just need something to stop T1 charge, after that who cares if they die? If it's important, it's really not very hard to string a conga line back to a commissar in your deployment zone and still have all the bristling guns at 24" fro the enemy.

 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

 More Dakka wrote:
If it's important, it's really not very hard to string a conga line back to a commissar in your deployment zone and still have all the bristling guns at 24" fro the enemy.


I mean, sure you could. I just think that sort of play is silly. I know it is just some arbitrary "rules of cool" I have come up with myself but I try to stick within the spirit of the game. I just seems weird to do stuff like that to me. I guess I am hurting myself by not doing things like that, or moving all of my tanks sideways for more cover and things like that. Personally, I want to be able to look at the board at the end of a turn and have it look like an actual battle. I guess I can't fault people for playing within the rules to gain an advantage, but I may tease them for it!

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Canada

Yeah, but like I said, that's only if you're really compelled to keep your Conscripts alive. In my proposed ambush deployment they're just there to screen for T1, then they can evaporate for all that they're worth.

 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

Anyone got any thoughts about an all-infantry Tallarn army? (Maybe with Sentinels to fill out a Brigade if necessary).

I'm thinking lots of Infantry squads as a base, perhaps some SWSs and/or Veterans to outflank with the Stratagem.

Do you think it would be worth taking any Heavy Weapons at all on Infantry, or just stick to special weapons (and maybe pistols) to keep them as mobile as possible?

 blood reaper wrote:
I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.



 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Have any of you guys run Codex Guard against Codex AdMech? What units were you afraid of? How did your lists do? I am asking as an AdMech player who may want to tweak his list before SoCal open. The main elements of my list are: Cawl/3Onagers/5DakkaRobots + Offier/OrdinanceGuy/3x Earthshakers + CelestineAndScreen

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/18 21:51:45


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

 Mmmpi wrote:
Spoiler:
Niiru wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
 RegulusBlack wrote:


I'm not sure that's legal... I know there's that FAQ thing that lets you use models or wargear options that are no longer supported in the new codex, such as Chaos Lords on daemonic mounts, which were in the Index but not in the Codex... but that's a whole models' datasheet that was left out of the codex, but people have the models for so GW has said "You can still play them, but use the datasheet from the Index".


It is legal, the same FAQ thing you reference makes a specific allowance for using models with weapon options that were in the index but not in the codex. I.E. - its the same datasheet in both codex and index, but the index has options that the codex version does not.

But it then gets to the point where you can say "In the index this unit was allowed to take 3 lascannons, but now it can only take 2 lascannons, so I'll use the Index version". How is that different to choosing between codex sword or index axe? It's not, not really. But it effects the way they (tried) to balance the book.


Yep, GW have kinda screwed themselves with a slippery slope situation here. I think they will need to clarify what, specifically, is allowable and what isn't, otherwise the codexes eventually become redundant.



I would say, however, that usually rules erratas are only valid for the codex they are errata-ing. Unless this FAQ was in the main rulebook errata... I honestly can't remember which army it was for. Thought it was space marines but I can't see it on there now when I look. The wording didn't say anything about "this rule applies to all armies" or anything. It's a precedent, sure, but since when has precedence meant anything in 40k lol

Otherwise, I agree with you - GW screwed up and it's a slippery slope.


The errata would still apply.


Why? Why would it still apply? Is there a rule written somewhere that says "any errata in one FAQ that also applies to other armies, automatically applies to all other armies"?

No, there isn't (that I know of). And so any FAQ in one army codex is completely unrelated to all other codices.

The only possible exception to this, is if the FAQ/Errata is in the big rule book FAQ, as that is by definition a universal set of rules that effects all other armies.

Just because you say it works, and you want it to work, doesn't mean that it does. This isn't RAW. It's barely even RAI. This is Rule Was Never Written Or Even Implied.
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





NJ

I’m thinking a supreme command detachment with 3 tank commanders, harker and a shadowsword would be pretty sexy.

Tank commanders are definitely worth it because they themselves are Leman Russes, so they can issue orders to each other, allowing harker to be elsewhere.

I’m thinking maybe a fire base of 3 Earthshaker batteries, some Wyverns and/or Manticores, all anchored by harker. Then maybe some Genestealers dropping in to clean up whatever’s left. Because I have no shame
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut





Niiru wrote:
 Mmmpi wrote:
Spoiler:
Niiru wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
 RegulusBlack wrote:


I'm not sure that's legal... I know there's that FAQ thing that lets you use models or wargear options that are no longer supported in the new codex, such as Chaos Lords on daemonic mounts, which were in the Index but not in the Codex... but that's a whole models' datasheet that was left out of the codex, but people have the models for so GW has said "You can still play them, but use the datasheet from the Index".


It is legal, the same FAQ thing you reference makes a specific allowance for using models with weapon options that were in the index but not in the codex. I.E. - its the same datasheet in both codex and index, but the index has options that the codex version does not.

But it then gets to the point where you can say "In the index this unit was allowed to take 3 lascannons, but now it can only take 2 lascannons, so I'll use the Index version". How is that different to choosing between codex sword or index axe? It's not, not really. But it effects the way they (tried) to balance the book.


Yep, GW have kinda screwed themselves with a slippery slope situation here. I think they will need to clarify what, specifically, is allowable and what isn't, otherwise the codexes eventually become redundant.



I would say, however, that usually rules erratas are only valid for the codex they are errata-ing. Unless this FAQ was in the main rulebook errata... I honestly can't remember which army it was for. Thought it was space marines but I can't see it on there now when I look. The wording didn't say anything about "this rule applies to all armies" or anything. It's a precedent, sure, but since when has precedence meant anything in 40k lol

Otherwise, I agree with you - GW screwed up and it's a slippery slope.


The errata would still apply.


Why? Why would it still apply? Is there a rule written somewhere that says "any errata in one FAQ that also applies to other armies, automatically applies to all other armies"?

No, there isn't (that I know of). And so any FAQ in one army codex is completely unrelated to all other codices.

The only possible exception to this, is if the FAQ/Errata is in the big rule book FAQ, as that is by definition a universal set of rules that effects all other armies.

Just because you say it works, and you want it to work, doesn't mean that it does. This isn't RAW. It's barely even RAI. This is Rule Was Never Written Or Even Implied.


What I should have said was; it the errata isn't cancelled out by the wording in the new codex.

Whether or not it applies to the new codex might still be up in the air at the moment (I personally don't think so), but if it does, you still can't name your regiment [Ordo}, {Militarum Tempestus], or [Auxillera].

(took out a sentence that was answering a different question)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/19 02:52:55


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

 Mmmpi wrote:
Niiru wrote:
 Mmmpi wrote:
Spoiler:
Niiru wrote:
chaos0xomega wrote:
 RegulusBlack wrote:


I'm not sure that's legal... I know there's that FAQ thing that lets you use models or wargear options that are no longer supported in the new codex, such as Chaos Lords on daemonic mounts, which were in the Index but not in the Codex... but that's a whole models' datasheet that was left out of the codex, but people have the models for so GW has said "You can still play them, but use the datasheet from the Index".


It is legal, the same FAQ thing you reference makes a specific allowance for using models with weapon options that were in the index but not in the codex. I.E. - its the same datasheet in both codex and index, but the index has options that the codex version does not.

But it then gets to the point where you can say "In the index this unit was allowed to take 3 lascannons, but now it can only take 2 lascannons, so I'll use the Index version". How is that different to choosing between codex sword or index axe? It's not, not really. But it effects the way they (tried) to balance the book.


Yep, GW have kinda screwed themselves with a slippery slope situation here. I think they will need to clarify what, specifically, is allowable and what isn't, otherwise the codexes eventually become redundant.



I would say, however, that usually rules erratas are only valid for the codex they are errata-ing. Unless this FAQ was in the main rulebook errata... I honestly can't remember which army it was for. Thought it was space marines but I can't see it on there now when I look. The wording didn't say anything about "this rule applies to all armies" or anything. It's a precedent, sure, but since when has precedence meant anything in 40k lol

Otherwise, I agree with you - GW screwed up and it's a slippery slope.


The errata would still apply.


Why? Why would it still apply? Is there a rule written somewhere that says "any errata in one FAQ that also applies to other armies, automatically applies to all other armies"?

No, there isn't (that I know of). And so any FAQ in one army codex is completely unrelated to all other codices.

The only possible exception to this, is if the FAQ/Errata is in the big rule book FAQ, as that is by definition a universal set of rules that effects all other armies.

Just because you say it works, and you want it to work, doesn't mean that it does. This isn't RAW. It's barely even RAI. This is Rule Was Never Written Or Even Implied.


What I should have said was; it the errata isn't cancelled out by the wording in the new codex.

Whether or not it applies to the new codex might still be up in the air at the moment (I personally don't think so), but if it does, you still can't name your regiment [Ordo}, {Militarum Tempestus], or [Auxillera].

(took out a sentence that was answering a different question)



Hi, sorry, I think we are talking about two totally different Erratas. I was talking about the one regarding grandfathering in units that no longer have a datasheet in new codex releases. I think you are talking about the FAQ regarding renaming regiments to match units with a fixed regiment keyword.

The rule you're talking about (and how you're explaining it) is correct, and is still valid with the new codex release.

I think you replied to my post by mistake. Think you meant to reply to the guy who was talking about getting Tempestus traits on his army.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/19 02:57:29


 
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut





No, I answered both, but looking things over again, I:

A) answered the wrong one just above

and

B) don't remember what my original point was in answering yours, even after rereading it.

So, having said that...Cheers?
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought






 More Dakka wrote:
 Trickstick wrote:
You can't Ambush Commissars along with the conscripts though, so you would need to use the Dagger of Tu'sakh to stop conscripts just being moralled to death. Also, I think that ambushing with 9 is a bit overkill myself.

I've found I have to force myself to call it ambushing too. Referring to it as deepstrike or outflank is wrong, as it doesn't work like either of those abilities. Mainly, if I call it outflanking I may forget that I can do it from any of the four board edges, not just the side ones. It may be extreme but I would urge people not to use those terms as they are not really correct.


Re the conscripts you just need something to stop T1 charge, after that who cares if they die? If it's important, it's really not very hard to string a conga line back to a commissar in your deployment zone and still have all the bristling guns at 24" fro the enemy.


Or just spend 2CP to keep the conscripts from taking a morale test if it's that important to keep them around.

Or spend 1 CP for commissar tank and ride out the morale test.

Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is, but they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.


 
   
Made in us
Student Curious About Xenos





Ontario, Cananda

Has anyone thought about using the "grenaders" and mordian "volley fire" stratagems on the same unit (say conscripts). that could be a lot of D6 shots if possible

Imperium:
Salamanders – 2500, Raven Guard – 3000, Imperial Fists – 3000
Imperial Guard – 5000, Militarum Tempestus – 2000, Grey Knights – 1500

Xenos:
Tau – 2500, Tyranids – 1500, Eldar - 500
 
   
Made in us
Kid_Kyoto






Probably work

 spiderman518 wrote:
Has anyone thought about using the "grenaders" and mordian "volley fire" stratagems on the same unit (say conscripts). that could be a lot of D6 shots if possible


I'm thinking about it now, but with an Infantry squad, because you don't get more than 10 anyway. You'd average 5.8 6s to hit out of that, which would get you an extra 5-6 d6s worth of damage. Could be fun.

Assume all my mathhammer comes from here: https://github.com/daed/mathhammer 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Shadowsword has been an auto include for me now.

Its all the anti-big things youll ever need. Its a lynch pin. But a pretty darn good one. You just need one good hit. And I've been averaging 6 shots.
   
Made in ca
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





 RedCommander wrote:
 Otto von Bludd wrote:
I really want to try out Cadian Doctrines but I feel like they are a trap, and a potentially boring one at that. Great buffs but you have to sit still to make use of them. Every Cadian unit weakens itself by moving and I'm tempted enough to sit still and gun line already. I think Catachans and Tallarn are the way to go.


Cadian Doctrine is good. It makes lascannons worthy.

You would think that your mobility suffers but it's not so bad. If the situation calls it and you really have to move these guys, you can move+advance in movement phase *and* move+advance in shooting place with Orders. You are bringing officers, right? Sure, you miss a turn a of shooting but with scenario play, it might be worth it. Killing something out of spite pales in comparison to actually playing the scenario and winning the game.

Also, nothing is stopping you from also fielding Stormtroopers. Deepstriking is the best form of movement.

Either way, when you are playing Imperium, it's a good idea to bring one detachment that doesn't benefit from Doctrines/etc. The variety just beats the alternative.


Those are good points, and I'll probably be running an Elysian detachment for mobility anyway. The sheer potential of the Cadian stratagem combined with their Doctrines is too much to pass up. Not to mention you can replicate the Catachan doctrine with your tank orders. The only units that I think are strictly better as Catachan units are Flame tanks, like the Heavy Flamer Chimera/Hellhound, but these could slip into a Catachan Outrider detachement to get the doctrines. But then again, Leman Russ tanks being immune to alpha strike via the Tallarn Stratagem is really good as well...

edit: Then again, Catachan Russes don't need to sit still to get a reroll of ones because of Harker, and re-rolling blasts is incredible...but Tallarns..
I haven't been this torn in list building for a long time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/19 16:45:06


 
   
Made in ca
Tunneling Trygon






Yeah Guard are absolutely drowning with options. But, because of the Catachan doctrine, I think Plasma Cannon sponsons are better on their tanks, (especially with Harker) as well as all HF tanks, Manticores, Manticore Batteries, Earthshakers, and more. Harker+Catachan is strictly better than Cadian + tank order for me. But, the Cadian Relic/Stratagem does make that much trickier...


 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





CO

For real, decisions decisions. I need to play a lot of games just to test out different doctrines to see what are most fun.

My Catachan punisher tank with 3 heavy flamers is crazy scary. And I've always rolled GARBAGE on my Manticore and Basilisk shots. Now I can free reroll 1 of those and it's been a game changer. I should probably just buy new dice ... Like my buddies Dark Imperium boxed set dice which are STUPID lucky.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/19 17:51:04


5k Imperial Guard
2k Ad Mech 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Now I can free reroll 1 of those and it's been a game changer.


It's one dice per weapon, not model.

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: