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.

FW chimera with 3 heavy bolters with Tallarn trait is really not bad at all !

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Just played a game against new Tau with my Catachans last night. And damn, I was pretty jealous of a bunch of their Stratagems :/

I feel like rarely use any of our guard Stratagems other than leadership test on a D3 or Take Cover.

What is your list? I find it very odd you're not finding at least some of these strategems worthwhile. At the very least inspired command should be getting popped a lot for infantry and tank armies.

Yeah I use that on my tank Commander until he's gone.

Don't get me wrong, I managed to get first turn and just ruthlessly pummeled him. It was just annoying when I charged him and he pulled out some mortal wound Stratagem meanwhile my Catachans have to be completely in cover, pay a CP AND roll a 4+ for D3 mortal wounds.

Or their grenade Stratagem which is actually viable.

It's a minor thing. It was just noticed in my game because I play a pretty aggressive Catachan list and wasn't expecting these mortal wounds coming at my charging fireball Russ, Bullgryn, or Chimeras.

AstraVlad wrote:

 Afrika wrote:
I just came back from playing mostly 4th edition and some 5th. What's up with the cost of Chimeras and where are their special rules?

They are gone. An Chimeras are gone with them. If you need transport you can always take Taurox but generally you'll be better off without metal boxes at all.

Dammit, i have Steel Legion and i haven't looked at the points in 8th but i have read the Regimental Doctrines and it seems very useful to have lasgun and plasma special weapons popping in and out of Chimeras

I only have two infantry platoons with two squads in each, and only four Chimeras; the Company Command Squad rides in a Vendetta, and i have two Valkyries for the two Platoon Command Squads

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
This is a bit late but thanks everyone who answered my question about the best Leman Russ variants. Shame the Exterminator is no good, my favourite looking Death Korps tank because it looks so WWl French

It's not that it's no good (it's not as bad as the Vanquisher), it's just that there's better out there. You could probably make it work if you really wanted to!

Yeah it's workable, it's outclassed by other variants, but there are some advantages to it. And if the army is more lore leaning then its faults shouldn't deter too much.

Basically, you need to be shooting at exactly two wound models for it to really make a difference. Comparing the Exterminator cannon to the Battle Cannon, the Exterminator gets four shots compared to d6 (essentially 3.5), but loses a point of strength and AP, with a fixed D2 instead of D:d3. You also lose two feet of range!

AP is arguably the most important aspect of a weapon (with -2 and -3 being the sweet spot), and S8 helps against T4, T7, and T8, which ii a very wide spread of targets. It's a lot to give up for slightly more shots and more consistent damage.

You also run into the fact that you can throw autocannons on damn near anything in the list: infantry squads, heavy weapon squads, sentinels, Tauroxes, even chimeras.

CaptainO wrote:
With so many CP in an IG army the Ariel spotter stratagem is pretty awesome when used with a basilisk. It only works on one unit per turn but as I only take one it’s not an issue. Taking them with Valhallan doctrine would mean it would keep firing until the end.

I’m now taking two LTBT and a basilisk in a vostroyan spearhead detachment. The 30” coaxial plus the 4.9” move mitigates a lot of the issue associated with with the conqueror. The basilisk doesn’t benefit as much from the doctrine but the +1 to hit rolls at on 1 CP can be useful.

I’m still taking cadia for my brigade detachment. Reroll misses is exceptional for my 3x3 mortar heavy weapon teams. If I didn’t love Using CPs so much I’d love to combo them with the old grudge warlord trait.

If you're willing to drop 2CP on Arial Spotter I think you're better off using Cadian Basilisks with Overlapping Fields of Fire (unless you're using that on plas SWS/scions). OFoF can affects every unit you have on the table as opposed to just 1 model and the +1 to hit coupled with Cadian rr 1s comes out better than rr all misses. Can also be coupled with Old Grudge

AstraVlad wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Outshadowed by basilisk though.

I really struggle to understand why people like Basilisks. I have one because I like the model, but I can never find a proper place for it in my lists. For a little over 100 pts. you get an average of 4 shots per turn, resulting in 2 hits (BS 4+) and after to-wound and save rolls you will probably end with one wound for D3 damage. It is pathetic. You can not use it to hunt elite infantry because it lacks volume of fire, you can not use it against vehicles or monsters because it deals too little damage per wound... basically you can not use it for anything. And the model itself is so big that you can not expect to hide it out of LOS that is critical for it's survival (T6 and 11 wounds is not a big deal).

If GW gave them an ability to shoot twice like LRs do, or boost BS to 3+ and damage to D6 (or better D3+3) they could be good, but now they are meh.

Because for points it overperforms manticore? Well okay if you are shooting against 4+ save or worse guys or T5/T9/T10 but those T scopes are so rare and most of 4+ or worse are 1W infantry at which point you are wasting d3 damage.

Against anything with 3+ or 2+ save it scores more damage than manticore. That's simple math.

And as for LOS hiding with 8th ed no vehicle can realistically be used to hide out of LOS unless it's custom made terrain made for that and those hide basilisk as well as manticore. I don't even remember when I had LOS blocker that was big enough to hide manticore but not basilisk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AstraVlad wrote:

 gbghg wrote:
it does the same damage per hit as the manticore but with an extra AP

A problem is: Manticore makes twice the number of shots compared to Basilisk so it can be used against infantry (with Catachan doctrine it will be about 8 shots per turn). But I personally do not think even Manticores are good enough to take them. For a comparable price you can have LRBT that will shoot twice, benefit from the same doctrines, can be ordered to do some funny things and have a bunch of other weapons to shoot with. Yes you will loose out-of-LOS-shooting capability but I rarely see situations where I both:
1. Need out-of-LOS shooting.
2. Can not deal with the target using massed mortar fire.

For points difference is actually about ~1.5 shots less. With extra AP. End result: Basilisk outscores vs vehicles. UNLESS we are talking about T9/T10/T18 vehicles but really? See much of those on battlefield?

Now albeit it's possible basilisk sucks. In that case though manticore sucks even more so guess you aren't fielding either one.

tneva82 wrote:

Because for points it overperforms manticore?

It does not. I've did a calculation at the previous page, please read it. I also can make the same one for every target you want (I've made a spreadsheet to do this) so if you are interested in learning how badly Basilisc sucks against any combination of toughness and save -- just tell me.

tneva82 wrote:

In that case though manticore sucks even more so guess you aren't fielding either one.

In real life Manticore sucks a little less, but it is still meh compared to the LRBT, so I do not field any of them indeed.

One big reason Arty is so popular is ITC houserules it's terrain to where ruins block LOS on the first floor. You'd be amazed how much can hide on those tables sometimes. That's the basilisk main strength. You can't hide from it. Meanwhile Russe's have to see their target, which meant braving a storm of dark reapers. Now they're reigned in a bit it's possible we'll see people trend toward Russe's and mortars over just basilisks since Russe's aren't dead the moment they step out.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
One big reason Arty is so popular is ITC houserules it's terrain to where ruins block LOS on the first floor. You'd be amazed how much can hide on those tables sometimes.

Oh, I do understand now. That's why we play by the book in local club: you can easily totally change the game dynamics if you start messing with the rules.

AstraVlad wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
One big reason Arty is so popular is ITC houserules it's terrain to where ruins block LOS on the first floor. You'd be amazed how much can hide on those tables sometimes.

Oh, I do understand now. That's why we play by the book in local club: you can easily totally change the game dynamics if you start messing with the rules.

But the book rules assume a level of LOS blocking terrain that most tables don't have. Ruined buildings are by far the most common large terrain, and under the core rules they block by true LOS, which means almost nothing is blocked.

 Polonius wrote:

AstraVlad wrote:

Oh, I do understand now. That's why we play by the book in local club: you can easily totally change the game dynamics if you start messing with the rules.

But the book rules assume a level of LOS blocking terrain that most tables don't have. Ruined buildings are by far the most common large terrain, and under the core rules they block by true LOS, which means almost nothing is blocked.

It is not a problem of rules -- it is a problem of people being too lazy to make a proper terrain (or too greedy to avoid buying a good 3-rd party terrain that is available in abundance).

Or not interested in replacing years worth of terrain just because GW is too lazy to come up with proper terrain rules...

Do you think for example gaming stores are swimming with time and money to replace 10 tables worth of terrain they have been building up little by little for years...

You might be super rich guy who can buy new terrain at will and have somebody paint it. Not all have though. And lots of terrain was useful before. Until GW botched up by being lazy bums rather than professional game designers.

tneva82 wrote:
Or not interested in replacing years worth of terrain just because GW is too lazy to come up with proper terrain rules...

Do you think for example gaming stores are swimming with time and money to replace 10 tables worth of terrain they have been building up little by little for years...

I bet this piece of terrain took hours to painstakingly assemble after costing $300, to be sure.

I can't even imagine the pain the owner will go through when he paints it...

The problem with most ruins even third party ruins is they are full of gaping holes that do dittily squat for blocking line of sight.

This is also imho one of the worst editions for terrain rules. Everything from charging into ruins to cover is just awful.


They need to make it possible to charge units in ruins if the model is within 1in.
And give ruins t7 10wds 4+ sv


That means you can remove buildings but it’s likely not worth doing most times.

I’d probably rather play with ineffective but good-looking terrain rather than actual garbage on the table.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
I’d probably rather play with ineffective but good-looking terrain rather than actual garbage on the table.

Me too. But the claim that "IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE TO TERRAIN" is literally ignoring how I lived for the first 1/3rd of my 40k career. Books stacked as hills covered with sheets, actual plant clippings as shrubbery, cardboard ruins...

tneva82 wrote:
Or not interested in replacing years worth of terrain just because GW is too lazy to come up with proper terrain rules...

It's just a self-excuse. I live in Russia, so I'm not anything near rich by western standards as well as my club-mates, but we somehow manage to play without breaking the game with home rules. We carve ruins from insulation foam (it looks surprisingly good when painted), we do a laser-cut terrain ourselves (one of the players work in the firm that produce laser-cut products) and sometimes buy a nice-looking pieces for a club if we can afford them (some of us are better off then others). As my father told me when I was young: "Those who want will find a way, those who don't will make up an excuse".

 Brother Payne wrote:

CaptainO wrote:
With so many CP in an IG army the Ariel spotter stratagem is pretty awesome when used with a basilisk. It only works on one unit per turn but as I only take one it’s not an issue. Taking them with Valhallan doctrine would mean it would keep firing until the end.

I’m now taking two LTBT and a basilisk in a vostroyan spearhead detachment. The 30” coaxial plus the 4.9” move mitigates a lot of the issue associated with with the conqueror. The basilisk doesn’t benefit as much from the doctrine but the +1 to hit rolls at on 1 CP can be useful.

I’m still taking cadia for my brigade detachment. Reroll misses is exceptional for my 3x3 mortar heavy weapon teams. If I didn’t love Using CPs so much I’d love to combo them with the old grudge warlord trait.

If you're willing to drop 2CP on Arial Spotter I think you're better off using Cadian Basilisks with Overlapping Fields of Fire (unless you're using that on plas SWS/scions). OFoF can affects every unit you have on the table as opposed to just 1 model and the +1 to hit coupled with Cadian rr 1s comes out better than rr all misses. Can also be coupled with Old Grudge

I’ve got two conquers in the same vostroyan spearhead as the basilisk as they benefit much more from that doctrine than they do from the cadian one (Reroll all misses even when moving with +6” range rather than Reroll 1s) the choice boils down to either swapping a mortar team from the cadian battalion to the vostroyan spearhead and the basi to the cadian battalion or leaving them where they are. I think the mortars benefit way more from being cadian and I can compensate the basis inability to use OFoF by using the vostroyan +1 stratagem. This heavy use of CPs pushes me back towards the grand stratagist trait though even though I now start the game with 16 CPs. Has anyone used “old grudge” in ITC tournaments ?

Hello fellow generals!!

After 15 years of (stupidly) buying/selling my IG armies for the next shiny thing; I've decided to step back to the army I know best, paint better (cause ya know, 60+ minis makes good practice) and that my wife supports paying for as long as I clean out my collection closet. I'm not a new 8th player aside from using Space Marines (which turned into a giant boring gunline) and want to go back to IG for a mixed force. My goal is to do roughly 400pts of Cadian infantry/sentinels in a Battalion for a solid firebase in my DZ; with the rest of my forces a mix of LR armor, a flyer, command squads, supporting infantry squads to move with the LR's, and tank commanders to specialize to take down their targets.

Couple of quick questions while I wait for my codex to come in though. For the non-Cadian part of my army, should I use Tallaran or Vostroyan doctrine? Given the 13CP I've cooked up from going two Bats I'm not sure which doctrine fits best the second one to go with Cadians. Do anything of the doctrines really stand out apart from Cadians to make my other Bat good on the move? I've made a list on BattleScribe of what I want to get as well.

Bubba4President wrote:
Hello fellow generals!!

After 15 years of (stupidly) buying/selling my IG armies for the next shiny thing; I've decided to step back to the army I know best, paint better (cause ya know, 60+ minis makes good practice) and that my wife supports paying for as long as I clean out my collection closet. I'm not a new 8th player aside from using Space Marines (which turned into a giant boring gunline) and want to go back to IG for a mixed force. My goal is to do roughly 400pts of Cadian infantry/sentinels in a Battalion for a solid firebase in my DZ; with the rest of my forces a mix of LR armor, a flyer, command squads, supporting infantry squads to move with the LR's, and tank commanders to specialize to take down their targets.

Couple of quick questions while I wait for my codex to come in though. For the non-Cadian part of my army, should I use Tallaran or Vostroyan doctrine? Given the 13CP I've cooked up from going two Bats I'm not sure which doctrine fits best the second one to go with Cadians. Do anything of the doctrines really stand out apart from Cadians to make my other Bat good on the move? I've made a list on BattleScribe of what I want to get as well.

you're mixing guard? I think it would look a little bleh on the table myself

Nuck Fewton wrote:

Bubba4President wrote:
Hello fellow generals!!

After 15 years of (stupidly) buying/selling my IG armies for the next shiny thing; I've decided to step back to the army I know best, paint better (cause ya know, 60+ minis makes good practice) and that my wife supports paying for as long as I clean out my collection closet. I'm not a new 8th player aside from using Space Marines (which turned into a giant boring gunline) and want to go back to IG for a mixed force. My goal is to do roughly 400pts of Cadian infantry/sentinels in a Battalion for a solid firebase in my DZ; with the rest of my forces a mix of LR armor, a flyer, command squads, supporting infantry squads to move with the LR's, and tank commanders to specialize to take down their targets.

Couple of quick questions while I wait for my codex to come in though. For the non-Cadian part of my army, should I use Tallaran or Vostroyan doctrine? Given the 13CP I've cooked up from going two Bats I'm not sure which doctrine fits best the second one to go with Cadians. Do anything of the doctrines really stand out apart from Cadians to make my other Bat good on the move? I've made a list on BattleScribe of what I want to get as well.

you're mixing guard? I think it would look a little bleh on the table myself

I run a mix of Cadian/Catatchan myself with pretty good results, but I also run a huge amount of infantry. My Cadians make up my gunline, and my Catachans have my LRBTs and unfortunate sacrificial objective grabbers.

Bubba4President wrote:
I'm not sure which doctrine fits best the second one to go with Cadians.

In general:
1. Cadian rules and stratagems are the best all-round ones. It's a sort of "default mode" for IG and the best one for mortars.
2. Catachan is great if you have a lot of flamers and artillery.
3. Tallarn lets you have mobility and do not trade firepower for speed but will provide you with less firepower that Cadian or Catachan (no re-rolls for amount of shots for cannons and flamers and no re-rolls of 1s to-hit for being stationary).
4. Valhalla is good if you want your superheavy tank to be a fire magnet but shoot until the end.
5. Others are situational. They are good if you like some regiment and want to represent it's spirit on the table, but not so powerful as Cadian, Catachan and Tallarn.

Bubba4President wrote:
Do anything of the doctrines really stand out apart from Cadians to make my other Bat good on the move?

For "good on the move" Tallarn is probably the top contender.

You get an ambush stratagem (three units, one of which can be a vehicle), your vehicles can fire heavy weapons without taking penalties to hit, and your infantry can advance and fire assault weapons with no negative modifiers. I forget what the Tallarn order is, but it's tank based and move oriented as well IIRC.

 Aesthete wrote:
I forget what the Tallarn order is, but it's tank based and move oriented as well IIRC.

It makes them a bit elfish: lets shoot and move (or move and shoot) in the shooting phase.

The Tallarn tank order is badass. Move 5" out from LOS blocking terrain, fire your guns with no penalty (all of them!) then move 5" back behind LOS blocking terrain. For the lulz.

AstraVlad wrote:

 Aesthete wrote:
I forget what the Tallarn order is, but it's tank based and move oriented as well IIRC.

It makes them a bit elfish: lets shoot and move (or move and shoot) in the shooting phase.

Before the FAQ, I would routinely Ambush (Stratagem) a Tank Commander into my opponent’s flank, use the Move order to run him another 6” closer to a soft opponent unit, then charge it with the Crush Them! (Strategem) to tie it up or finish it off.
Post- FAQ any movement after deepstriking is prohibited so can’t pull it off anymore.

 Polonius wrote:

 Lion of Caliban wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
This is a bit late but thanks everyone who answered my question about the best Leman Russ variants. Shame the Exterminator is no good, my favourite looking Death Korps tank because it looks so WWl French

It's not that it's no good (it's not as bad as the Vanquisher), it's just that there's better out there. You could probably make it work if you really wanted to!

Yeah it's workable, it's outclassed by other variants, but there are some advantages to it. And if the army is more lore leaning then its faults shouldn't deter too much.

Basically, you need to be shooting at exactly two wound models for it to really make a difference. Comparing the Exterminator cannon to the Battle Cannon, the Exterminator gets four shots compared to d6 (essentially 3.5), but loses a point of strength and AP, with a fixed D2 instead of D:d3. You also lose two feet of range!

AP is arguably the most important aspect of a weapon (with -2 and -3 being the sweet spot), and S8 helps against T4, T7, and T8, which ii a very wide spread of targets. It's a lot to give up for slightly more shots and more consistent damage.

You also run into the fact that you can throw autocannons on damn near anything in the list: infantry squads, heavy weapon squads, sentinels, Tauroxes, even chimeras.

I agree, though i'd repeat its workable for someone going for more of a lore leaning army, but the LRBT is better, and far more versatile. It seems aimed at dealing with poor armour save units with 2 wounds each. Not many of those running around. And as you say autocannons are readily available on a lot of other more effective units.

The age old debate: Lascannons in Infantry Squads or dedicated HWTs?

Infantry squads