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.

changemod wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

Honestly? I own nine Spyders and can't imagine myself ever using a Canoptek Harvest again.

It's completely useless for themed list building with one Spyder, relegated to only being any good for power builds where you spam minimum harvests for the buff.

Can't meaningfully scarab farm with one per turn after all.

I don't really care to scarab farm. When I run Harvests, I keep the scarabs out of LoS in cover, and just spawn 3-4 throughout the game and send them off when I need them to do something.

Yeah but like I said, I'm more interested in the Canoptek units themselves than the power of the formation bonus, and scarabs are uninteresting without the gimmick of spawning more. Especially now that they cost more, have a smaller base unit cap and entropic strike doesn't strip AV.

They're less spamable by default and lost their unique rule. All they have left from a fun perspective is getting expanded by a ton of Spyders.

I disagree. Their rule was only usable on vehicles, and you needed a large unit for it to really matter. Now, a small unit can still do damage to vehicles, and I've put wounds on Wraithknights with them (which makes more sense fluff-wise than only being able to hurt vehicles for some reason). I will admit I was sad when they got more expensive and got a worse save, as I didn't think they needed such a nerf, but whatever.

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

Honestly? I own nine Spyders and can't imagine myself ever using a Canoptek Harvest again.

It's completely useless for themed list building with one Spyder, relegated to only being any good for power builds where you spam minimum harvests for the buff.

Can't meaningfully scarab farm with one per turn after all.

I don't really care to scarab farm. When I run Harvests, I keep the scarabs out of LoS in cover, and just spawn 3-4 throughout the game and send them off when I need them to do something.

Yeah but like I said, I'm more interested in the Canoptek units themselves than the power of the formation bonus, and scarabs are uninteresting without the gimmick of spawning more. Especially now that they cost more, have a smaller base unit cap and entropic strike doesn't strip AV.

They're less spamable by default and lost their unique rule. All they have left from a fun perspective is getting expanded by a ton of Spyders.

I disagree. Their rule was only usable on vehicles, and you needed a large unit for it to really matter. Now, a small unit can still do damage to vehicles, and I've put wounds on Wraithknights with them (which makes more sense fluff-wise than only being able to hurt vehicles for some reason). I will admit I was sad when they got more expensive and got a worse save, as I didn't think they needed such a nerf, but whatever.

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

changemod wrote:

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

You said it doesn't strip AV. I'm pointing out how that doesn't matter. If that's what it takes for you to be interested in a unit, then maybe the 7th edition books aren't for you.

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

You said it doesn't strip AV. I'm pointing out how that doesn't matter. If that's what it takes for you to be interested in a unit, then maybe the 7th edition books aren't for you.

They are less interesting. People already compared the old entropic strike to Gauss weaponry when the old book was released. The logic was - why use scarabs when you can guass a tank to death from a distance? By changing it from a very unique rule to basically just close-combat gauss weapons it makes them less interesting and even more redundant. Increasing the price and making them worse is just a kick in the head.

I liked the old rule - you didn't need a very large unit to attack a tank before you stripped off enough armor that the rest of the attacks were glancing on 6's anyways and then it got better from then on. I also had a unit of scarabs tie up Mephiston for 2 turns and actually melt his armor off - that's hilarious and I'll never forget that. The new scarabs mostly just collect dust on the shelf. Doesn't mean 7th ed book is bad and I don't enjoy playing it - it just means that it lost a fun and unique unit rule.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

You said it doesn't strip AV. I'm pointing out how that doesn't matter. If that's what it takes for you to be interested in a unit, then maybe the 7th edition books aren't for you.

They are less interesting. People already compared the old entropic strike to Gauss weaponry when the old book was released. The logic was - why use scarabs when you can guass a tank to death from a distance? By changing it from a very unique rule to basically just close-combat gauss weapons it makes them less interesting and even more redundant. Increasing the price and making them worse is just a kick in the head.

I liked the old rule - you didn't need a very large unit to attack a tank before you stripped off enough armor that the rest of the attacks were glancing on 6's anyways and then it got better from then on. I also had a unit of scarabs tie up Mephiston for 2 turns and actually melt his armor off - that's hilarious and I'll never forget that. The new scarabs mostly just collect dust on the shelf. Doesn't mean 7th ed book is bad and I don't enjoy playing it - it just means that it lost a fun and unique unit rule.

Wow. I feel the complete opposite. Sure, the old rule was more "interesting" by being unique, but the old codex in general was bland. 75% of the units were garbage and the whole army lacked unique rules as a whole. This new codex changed all of that for me.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Akar wrote:

harkequin wrote:
This is the barrel of the gun, sponson mounted means it can shoot what it can be pointed at.

How do you know this is the 'Barrel' of the weapon and not some other part. I'm asking honestly because I've never put the thing together, so I don't even know if the instructions list the part as a 'barrel'. Or is it just an assumption that everyone will treat this as a barrel, and therefore a part of the weapon? Or that we're actually treating that as just a part of the hull, and keeping the sphere part of the reference to both the weapon and FAQ?

How is that not the barrel? If its not the barrel then what part is the barrel and also what is the purpose of the apparently not barrel?

Oooooor the sphere itself is the weapon and the metallic part is a containment field or some other such thing. Maybe a power generator. Ever seen those plasma ball toys? The ones you put your hand on and get to see all the pretty lightning flash around? Maybe the lightning comes out of the metal part and can move at will or upon direction?

 krodarklorr wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

You said it doesn't strip AV. I'm pointing out how that doesn't matter. If that's what it takes for you to be interested in a unit, then maybe the 7th edition books aren't for you.

They are less interesting. People already compared the old entropic strike to Gauss weaponry when the old book was released. The logic was - why use scarabs when you can guass a tank to death from a distance? By changing it from a very unique rule to basically just close-combat gauss weapons it makes them less interesting and even more redundant. Increasing the price and making them worse is just a kick in the head.

I liked the old rule - you didn't need a very large unit to attack a tank before you stripped off enough armor that the rest of the attacks were glancing on 6's anyways and then it got better from then on. I also had a unit of scarabs tie up Mephiston for 2 turns and actually melt his armor off - that's hilarious and I'll never forget that. The new scarabs mostly just collect dust on the shelf. Doesn't mean 7th ed book is bad and I don't enjoy playing it - it just means that it lost a fun and unique unit rule.

Wow. I feel the complete opposite. Sure, the old rule was more "interesting" by being unique, but the old codex in general was bland. 75% of the units were garbage and the whole army lacked unique rules as a whole. This new codex changed all of that for me.

Oh I don't disagree with you there. As a whole, I think the new book is quite a lot better than the old one. This one unit just stands out as losing a lot of it's uniqueness and interestingness - even as the rest of the book improved. Still - no codex is ever perfect and if I had never played the 6th edition scarabs, I probably would have no issue with these ones.

GW also has a long history of tinkering with swarms every single edition in both fantasy and 40k - usually for the worse. :p

So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Just another level of safety while getting across the board. They're ultra safe already with 3+/4+++ and MTC, and pretty fast with their 12" move, but sometimes you want them to not be able to be shot until the very last second. If you bring them in via a Scythe, drop them off 12" away from their target and in cover and then unload with shooting, there are fewer turns of them walking across the board, tempting Tau and Eldar to remove them before they get anywhere useful. Not necessary, but you're encouraged to bring Night Scythes now that they get the bonus from Judicator Battalion, so why not?

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

Oh I don't disagree with you there. As a whole, I think the new book is quite a lot better than the old one. This one unit just stands out as losing a lot of it's uniqueness and interestingness - even as the rest of the book improved. Still - no codex is ever perfect and if I had never played the 6th edition scarabs, I probably would have no issue with these ones.

GW also has a long history of tinkering with swarms every single edition in both fantasy and 40k - usually for the worse. :p

I'm hoping they do something to swarms, because as of right now, the Swarm special rule is nothing but a hindrance.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Better than deep striking them (removes the worry about scatter/mishap so you can get up close to use their AP2 shots with minimal risk, can spread out instead of being forced to clump together to be template bait).
Plus, confirmed that the NS get the formation bonus, AND the fact that units can re-embark in them (that's anyone, not just the Praets).
Not really any downsides apart from price.

Requizen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Not necessary, but you're encouraged to bring Night Scythes now that they get the bonus from Judicator Battalion, so why not?

This is exactly my thought process. 8 twin-linked Tesla shots with Shred/Tank Hunters against one target is nasty.

 nintura wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Akar wrote:

harkequin wrote:
This is the barrel of the gun, sponson mounted means it can shoot what it can be pointed at.

How do you know this is the 'Barrel' of the weapon and not some other part. I'm asking honestly because I've never put the thing together, so I don't even know if the instructions list the part as a 'barrel'. Or is it just an assumption that everyone will treat this as a barrel, and therefore a part of the weapon? Or that we're actually treating that as just a part of the hull, and keeping the sphere part of the reference to both the weapon and FAQ?

How is that not the barrel? If its not the barrel then what part is the barrel and also what is the purpose of the apparently not barrel?

Oooooor the sphere itself is the weapon and the metallic part is a containment field or some other such thing. Maybe a power generator. Ever seen those plasma ball toys? The ones you put your hand on and get to see all the pretty lightning flash around? Maybe the lightning comes out of the metal part and can move at will or upon direction?

You can make that argument for every single model though. There are very few models that explicitly state what the barrel is, it is left up to us to determine from the model.

And given that the piece is the exact same as the barrel of other tesla weapons, it's a bigger leap to say it isn't the barrel than is.



This is a monolith. The Flux arc is as far towards the Nightbringer as possible. You can only get 2 Flux arcs on a unit, unless it surrounds you partially.

The arguments made for the vault can be made for the monolith, if you argue one, you must argue the other. The monolith clearly does not have a 270 arc.

"We aren't told what is the barrel"
"maybe it fires from the ball itself"

The Tesla has a tesla barrel, the Gauss has a gauss barrel.

Couple things. The first is you can get three Flux Arcs by aiming a corner at your target. The second is there is nothing calling it a barrel or anything of that type. It's a Tesla Sphere. Therefore the weapon is the sphere itself. The sphere itself has LoS. It doesn't have to have a barrel, you're trying to tie real world logic to an alien race. The flux arc clearly has barrels, the sphere is just bad modeling that they attached rules too. But RAW and RAI, the weapon is the sphere which has a near 360 degree arc, except that the model itself is blocking some of that.

Whatever. Until they clear it up in the final FAQ (if they do), it's clear people won't agree on it. Ask your TO or FLGS opponent if you really want to use one.

This may be irrelevant, but just to point out something with the consistency and clarity on GW's rules to models here. The old Tesseract Vault did not have Tesla Spheres on it's profile, even though they are clearly modeled on it, just as the Obelisk. It couldn't shoot them, because reasons.

This is GW, for cripes sake.

Like, what do we count the Particle Whip as? It's a giant crystal. Is that crystal the barrel? Who knows? And the Triarch Stalker. You can make it so that the weapon is detachable and can be made to somewhat rotate. Or you can glue it in place. Then what? Does it could as Hull mounted if you glued it? Is it 360' if you didn't?

 nintura wrote:
Couple things. The first is you can get three Flux Arcs by aiming a corner at your target.

To get 3 arcs on your target it has to be at about 7" long and pretty close, or really long and far away, you can do the same with the Vault, just bigger distances from a bigger model.

The second is there is nothing calling it a barrel or anything of that type. It's a Tesla Sphere. Therefore the weapon is the sphere itself. The sphere itself has LoS.

Right, and the monolith is a Flux arc, there is nothing calling it a barrel, its a Flux arc, therefore the weapon is the Flux arc, with has LoS

It doesn't have to have a barrel, you're trying to tie real world logic to an alien race.

I'm trying to tie the Rules as written to an alien race. We're not discussing RAI.

"trace line of sight from each weapons mounting along it's barrel"

You dont have a barrel you don't have LoS. Stupid i know, but its a direct quote, rules as written.

The flux arc clearly has barrels,

So does the Tesla Sphere.

But RAW and RAI, the weapon is the sphere which has a near 360 degree arc, except that the model itself is blocking some of that.

Raw the weapon literally can't trace line of sight. RAI , I agree it's probably turret mounted, but we're not discussing RAI.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 krodarklorr wrote:
This may be irrelevant, but just to point out something with the consistency and clarity on GW's rules to models here. The old Tesseract Vault did not have Tesla Spheres on it's profile, even though they are clearly modeled on it, just as the Obelisk. It couldn't shoot them, because reasons.

This is GW, for cripes sake.

Like, what do we count the Particle Whip as? It's a giant crystal. Is that crystal the barrel? Who knows? And the Triarch Stalker. You can make it so that the weapon is detachable and can be made to somewhat rotate. Or you can glue it in place. Then what? Does it could as Hull mounted if you glued it? Is it 360' if you didn't?

Yeah GW writes rules stupidly, without enough forethought. Hell ive heard the monolith argued as 360 arc, or 90 arc from the hole in front of the crystal, GW just arent great at rules....

I'm only poking holes in people arguing that it's ironclad that it can fire 270. I use the model, I'd love it to get FAQd properly, but come on Its got a gun at each corner just like the monolith. i which doesn't get to fire all guns but the one on the opposite corner...

Short ranged fire support deployed where it's needed? I can't imagine prats in scythe would be worth the points though, and they already have deepstrike, so it doesn't seem like a big add.

Also I can't believe we wasted three pages arguing about the Obelisk, even if we took the most lenient interpretation of the rules, it's not exactly a game breaking unit, certainly not worth the effort we've put in the debate. The buff to gravity pulse is nice, but maybe not enough to make it worth it's points as anything but a fire magnet.

Cheese and crackers though, man did they make deathmarks worth their points, looking forward to murdering some wraith knights and hearing eldar players whine about overpowered units (music, sweet music).

The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

Unless the sphere IS the gun. A sphere by definition does not have a barrel or it wouldn't be a sphere. By your definition you couldn't ever use shooting psyker powers because they don't have a barrel.

 nintura wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

Unless the sphere IS the gun. A sphere by definition does not have a barrel or it wouldn't be a sphere. By your definition you couldn't ever use shooting psyker powers because they don't have a barrel.

I literally quoted the BRB.
For vehicle fire arcs
"draw line of sight from the mounting along the barrel"

If you just had to draw LoS from the gun itself, and not the barrel, the Doomscythes/Nightscythes would be so broken.

 nintura wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

Unless the sphere IS the gun. A sphere by definition does not have a barrel or it wouldn't be a sphere. By your definition you couldn't ever use shooting psyker powers because they don't have a barrel.

Doesn't matter if the sphere IS the gun, The rules tell you have to draw LoS from the barrel of the gun, not just the gun itself

Also these are the rule for drawing LoS FOR VEHICLES. Your psyker example doesn't apply here because they use a completely different rule set

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

Unless the sphere IS the gun. A sphere by definition does not have a barrel or it wouldn't be a sphere. By your definition you couldn't ever use shooting psyker powers because they don't have a barrel.

Doesn't matter if the sphere IS the gun, The rules tell you have to draw LoS from the barrel of the gun, not just the gun itself

Also these are the rule for drawing LoS FOR VEHICLES. Your psyker example doesn't apply here because they use a completely different rule set

Good luck ever firing Hunter Killer Missles then. Seeing as how they dont have barrels. Or Eldar shield blasts. Or any number of things that don't have barrels.

Seriously - while this is.... just a thrilling bit of grammatical in intellectual gymnastics, it's clear it's going nowhere.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

You said it doesn't strip AV. I'm pointing out how that doesn't matter. If that's what it takes for you to be interested in a unit, then maybe the 7th edition books aren't for you.

They are less interesting. People already compared the old entropic strike to Gauss weaponry when the old book was released. The logic was - why use scarabs when you can guass a tank to death from a distance? By changing it from a very unique rule to basically just close-combat gauss weapons it makes them less interesting and even more redundant. Increasing the price and making them worse is just a kick in the head.

I liked the old rule - you didn't need a very large unit to attack a tank before you stripped off enough armor that the rest of the attacks were glancing on 6's anyways and then it got better from then on. I also had a unit of scarabs tie up Mephiston for 2 turns and actually melt his armor off - that's hilarious and I'll never forget that. The new scarabs mostly just collect dust on the shelf. Doesn't mean 7th ed book is bad and I don't enjoy playing it - it just means that it lost a fun and unique unit rule.

Wow. I feel the complete opposite. Sure, the old rule was more "interesting" by being unique, but the old codex in general was bland. 75% of the units were garbage and the whole army lacked unique rules as a whole. This new codex changed all of that for me.

Oh I don't disagree with you there. As a whole, I think the new book is quite a lot better than the old one. This one unit just stands out as losing a lot of it's uniqueness and interestingness - even as the rest of the book improved. Still - no codex is ever perfect and if I had never played the 6th edition scarabs, I probably would have no issue with these ones.

GW also has a long history of tinkering with swarms every single edition in both fantasy and 40k - usually for the worse. :p

Mmm. The new book has much better internal balance, only a few dud units.

But that said? It strip mined personality.

Crypteks in particular lost all their wargear options and flexibility, and in the process Overlords became very hard to justify (a slow combat unit which distinctly does not buff the unit it's attracted to despite historically doing so) and Lords worthless. Unless you're running a decurion which has an overlord tax, the only HQ's with much of an actual role are Orikan, the Destroyer Lord and cheap generic crypteks, possibly holding a utility relic.

C'tan before were wimpy, but at least predictable. Now you can't really plan around them. And as much as the Transcendant needed a nerf, removing it entirely and replacing it with what is transparently a generic C'tan shard with the name and fluff of a completely different unit is a direct insult to the player's intelligence.

Good luck ever firing Hunter Killer Missles then. Seeing as how they dont have barrels. Or Eldar shield blasts. Or any number of things that don't have barrels.

Games workshop write stupid rules we know that.
RAW hunterkillers dont work then, a lot breaks when the game is used pure RAW, that's why we have RAI.

This discussion however is about RAW, and we know RAW is stupid. If you and your opponent come to a RAI agreement, then theres no stopping you playing.

I'm only arguing this because people were arguing that the RAW fire arc is 270, theres no way to support that with RAW.

harkequin wrote:

Good luck ever firing Hunter Killer Missles then. Seeing as how they dont have barrels. Or Eldar shield blasts. Or any number of things that don't have barrels.

Games workshop write stupid rules we know that.
RAW hunterkillers dont work then, a lot breaks when the game is used pure RAW, that's why we have RAI.

This discussion however is about RAW, and we know RAW is stupid. If you and your opponent come to a RAI agreement, then theres no stopping you playing.

I'm only arguing this because people were arguing that the RAW fire arc is 270, theres no way to support that with RAW.

Just replace 'barrel of the gun' with 'weapon'. Likely the only reason 'barrel of the gun' was written was because of the model they were using and didn't want to confuse the reader.

 nintura wrote:

harkequin wrote:

Good luck ever firing Hunter Killer Missles then. Seeing as how they dont have barrels. Or Eldar shield blasts. Or any number of things that don't have barrels.

Games workshop write stupid rules we know that.
RAW hunterkillers dont work then, a lot breaks when the game is used pure RAW, that's why we have RAI.

This discussion however is about RAW, and we know RAW is stupid. If you and your opponent come to a RAI agreement, then theres no stopping you playing.

I'm only arguing this because people were arguing that the RAW fire arc is 270, theres no way to support that with RAW.

Just replace 'barrel of the gun' with 'weapon'. Likely the only reason 'barrel of the gun' was written was because of the model they were using and didn't want to confuse the reader.

1. there is no rules support for this. RAI you're fine, but like i said, we're talking RAW.
2. that gives doom/night scythes a 360 fire arc by measuring LoS from the 'weapon' , you can't interchange them.



The overarching point being made here is this

A tesla sphere has something that looks like a barrel. You can measure along this to get a 45 fire arc that is 100% playable but people don't like.
Or you can say that it doesn't have a barrel, which makes the weapon unplayable without resorting to house rules. At this point you could just skip a step and house rule the fire arc!

There is at least some RAW support for a small fire arc.
There is no RAW support for a 270 one. Plenty of RAI support though.

I dont understand where you're getting this comparison from.... the tesla destructor is a fixed gun yes, but it has an obvious barrel. That barrel is pointed in one direction. A sphere is a circle. imagine if you took a basketball and added thousands of barrels in every single direction on 100% of it's surface, that's a spherical weapon. In most stories, you'd actually get a nova blast, like a grenade, but instead you only get a blast in one direction albeit in any direction you want.