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.

I would rather have 73 point Chimeras hitting on 5+ than 88 point heavy flamers with only 8" range. The low range means you will probably only get one round of shooting, and the overwatch stratagem is going to be out of range a fair amount. Over 5 Chimeras, a 75 point saving is quite significant, especially at 1k points.

Could toss some sentinels in to make up the points, somewhat fluffy addition for a mechanised unit and the weapon loadout could make a regimental doctrine more obvious to choose. Could double down on the flamers and go catachan, could pick whatever and run armageddon and make your opponent use dedicated AT in order to kill them.

Given the sheer amount of flamers in your list though you probably want catachan, 8" flamers and 18" rapidfire lasguns don't exactly have a great overlap.

 Trickstick wrote:
I would rather have 73 point Chimeras hitting on 5+ than 88 point heavy flamers with only 8" range. The low range means you will probably only get one round of shooting, and the overwatch stratagem is going to be out of range a fair amount. Over 5 Chimeras, a 75 point saving is quite significant, especially at 1k points.

Yeah, but I want the list to be 2k, lol. I am planning to throw in Tank Commanders or... something. I am struggling to reach 1k, even with the flamers. I don't need "75 pts free" I need to spend an extra 50 or something, lol.

I'm not so sure about the low range meaning I get only one round of shooting. First turn you dive forwards, go for cover, and take the -1 to hit from smoke, then you make the enemy make hard choices. My experience playing Sororitas Immolators (which are ~100 points (a good bit over twin flamer chimeras), but otherwise identical save 4" of range) tells me that people won't be able to kill all of them.

Put track guards on the Chimera and you always get a 20" threat range with the heavy flamers until each single chimera is dead forever - no worries about degrading. Your opponent has to /slay/ them. That's actually quite a bit of effort for 50 T7 3+ wounds, especially if my other 1k points is just more stuff, like Russes or something.

You're correct about the overwatch stratagem being out of range most of the time, but it's only usable once per phase anyways, so all I have to do is make sure the unit I am most afraid of being charged is very near the Chimera, and the rest can do whatever. Honestly, this stratagem doesn't strike me as particularly good even with the 73 pt chimera: vs MEQ, it'll do (3 shots, 4+/3+/3+ save means 0.33 dead Space Marines from the Multilaser, and 3 shots, 4+/3+/4+ save means 0.5 dead marines) ≤ 1 casualty on average rolls, for the cost of 1CP. I'd rather just use the twin heavy flamers, which is a credible deterrent, and move my units carefully to try to maximize it. I think the real value in the stratagem is to deter chargers (without spending any CP at all) and forcing them to move carefully. It can be used on any chimera as well, so if I keep the units interwoven amongst the tanks, it should be easy to let the chimeras fire their heavy flamers with the strat. Lastly, the heavy flamers are a huge deterrent to units trying to charge the Chimerae themselves, which a regular 73 pt chimera isn't.

I'd like to make a case for the heavy flamer.

One round of double heavy flamer shooting averages 7 hits. The double havy bolter needs to shoot for 3,5 turns to match that (if moving). That should about average out over a game, with the added bonus that a double flamer chimera is a noticeable threat when it is at optimal range.

I do agree that the longer overwatch range of heavy bolters gives a lot more freedom for positioning the Infantry.

Mellon wrote:
I do agree that the longer overwatch range of heavy bolters gives a lot more freedom for positioning the Infantry.

Yeah, this is just about the only disadvantage of the THF Chimera. I'm not willing to make major changes over a single stratagem that will only cause ~0.83 dead marines anyways.

EDIT:
What do you guys think about adding Hellhounds? 3 Hellhounds or so should make a credible threat, so my opponent is forced to make even more hard choices between the Flamer Tanks (with long range and more hits) or the Flamer Transports with Flamer Infantry inside....

I love hellhounds. Just finished adding stubbers to mine after CA. I go with Tallarn, HB/Stubb with track guards. The idea is to stay at max range and kite. If I wasn't going Tallarn I would be tempted by banewolves with HF/stormbolter, to get within 8" and melt stuff.

 Trickstick wrote:
I love hellhounds. Just finished adding stubbers to mine after CA. I go with Tallarn, HB/Stubb with track guards. The idea is to stay at max range and kite. If I wasn't going Tallarn I would be tempted by banewolves with HF/stormbolter, to get within 8" and melt stuff.

Yeah, in my case (not Tallarn) I'd be torn between the Hellhound ad the Banewolf. I'm going Catachan, and wouldn't be afraid of getting within 8", so it's basically 2d6 but one wounds on a 2+ vs 3d6... lol. I think Track Guards really make them neato, for sure.

The biggest question is "What should I do about Anti-Tank?" I have ~1k points left; was thinking 3 Tank Commanders with Hammer of Sunderance (my only army relic, unless I spring for Laurels) on one and either Demolisher Cannons or Battle Cannons on the others, but I am open to any and all answers . It doesn't even have to be mono-guard, though I'd like it to be thematic lol.

I'll be honest when I list build these days the process is less "should I take hellhounds?" and more "Is there a reason to not take hellhounds?". They're just a really solid unit and a lot of my games end up as being against eldar so they're my go to for removing crap like rangers which stack minus's to hit.

Catachan hellhounds are pretty nasty in my experience, they just shred infantry and with the 4+ explosion you can even make your opponent regret killing them, nothing like a hellhound going boom in the middle of a bunch of shining spears, warlock's on jetbike and an autarch on a jetbike.

I think the demolisher is the best choice of gun against vehicles. An overcharged executioner draws with it against t7, but that has some risk. As long as you can deal with the range issue of course. Then again, demolishers have to move to be effective. That would hurt your hull weapons, making the use of a tank commander less beneficial.

I have not really run the numbers, but a Catachan Devildog could be an option. The turret gun is assault so would not be hit with the -1. These are issues I specifically sidestep by taking Tallarn, so have not really given deep consideration.

 Trickstick wrote:
I think the demolisher is the best choice of gun against vehicles. An overcharged executioner draws with it against t7, but that has some risk. As long as you can deal with the range issue of course. Then again, demolishers have to move to be effective. That would hurt your hull weapons, making the use of a tank commander less beneficial.

I have not really run the numbers, but a Catachan Devildog could be an option. The turret gun is assault so would not be hit with the -1. These are issues I specifically sidestep by taking Tallarn, so have not really given deep consideration.

Well, I'd be running the tanks in a different detachment (probably a Supreme Command) so they could be Tallarn with Hull Lascannons.

The only problem is I can basically get to 2k with a couple Hellhounds and then a couple Malcador Infernuses which makes me upset because I own two of the latter but they're 340 with two heavy flamers. So I can spend nearly 700 points on Malcador Infernuses, which would be fluffy (because FIRE!!!!) but not helpful...

*ahem* setting aside that dumb, I could probably go any other regiment entirely with the Tank Commanders. Do you think they'd be a valid option? I could do Vostroyan for the Demolisher guns to be 30" - they'd still have to move, but could stay in the chimera phalanx. Alternatively, keep them Catachan and put heavy flamers on them

Catachan fireball demolishers could be quite good. I don't like putting flamers on bs3+ units, but that may just be me not wanting to waste the better shooting chance. I'm also not sure how effective flamers would be if you only move at 5". So you would have to give up grinding advance to move 10" and flame.

Now that I think about it, that could be a good use for the Unyielding Advance stratagem. Would give you the ability to move at 10" and double shot whilst flaming. Used to think a fireball demolisher was wasted with the bs3+ upgrade, although now that TCs are cheaper it could be less of an issue.

The Malcador Infernus is one of my favourite models FW does. It is too bad that FW rules seem to be falling behind in effectiveness. The only model I actually use anymore is the Vulture, even though a punisher is probably a better choice these days.

 Trickstick wrote:
Catachan fireball demolishers could be quite good. I don't like putting flamers on bs3+ units, but that may just be me not wanting to waste the better shooting chance. I'm also not sure how effective flamers would be if you only move at 5". So you would have to give up grinding advance to move 10" and flame.

Now that I think about it, that could be a good use for the Unyielding Advance stratagem. Would give you the ability to move at 10" and double shot whilst flaming. Used to think a fireball demolisher was wasted with the bs3+ upgrade, although now that TCs are cheaper it could be less of an issue.

The Malcador Infernus is one of my favourite models FW does. It is too bad that FW rules seem to be falling behind in effectiveness. The only model I actually use anymore is the Vulture, even though a punisher is probably a better choice these days.

Do you think I should bring a Catachan supreme command with a fireball demolisher, a Hammer of Sunderance tank commander (who sits in the back), and ... some other HQ?

I could also bring one (1) single Infernus, just as a nod to the model.... idk.

An Infernus would be a nice centrepiece model, as long as you accept it is probably not the best choice. That 2d6 explosion could be a very nasty surprise if you are not careful about your movement. Don't forget that it is not a super heavy or a lord of war, so it has problems getting tied up in combat. It also seems expensive for a suicide unit.

As for tank commanders, I tend to go with a Hammer of Sunderance and then two more identical tanks. I like backup and redundancy. I've been using las/plas demolishers, athough non-Tallarn would probably melt themselves. You could go for triple bolter. They still hit on a 4+ when moving, and would be a bit cheaper. Triple flamer could work too.

 Trickstick wrote:
An Infernus would be a nice centrepiece model, as long as you accept it is probably not the best choice. That 2d6 explosion could be a very nasty surprise if you are not careful about your movement. Don't forget that it is not a super heavy or a lord of war, so it has problems getting tied up in combat. It also seems expensive for a suicide unit.

As for tank commanders, I tend to go with a Hammer of Sunderance and then two more identical tanks. I like backup and redundancy. I've been using las/plas demolishers, athough non-Tallarn would probably melt themselves. You could go for triple bolter. They still hit on a 4+ when moving, and would be a bit cheaper. Triple flamer could work too.

So just battlecannons, then, no Demolishers?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So just battlecannons, then, no Demolishers?

Sorry, I meant identical to each other. So a pair of demolishers, or maybe executioners. Which one would depend on if you want to move or not. I guess you could go bolter executioner and still move.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So just battlecannons, then, no Demolishers?

Sorry, I meant identical to each other. So a pair of demolishers, or maybe executioners. Which one would depend on if you want to move or not. I guess you could go bolter executioner and still move.

Honestly, I am thinking sponsonless. Planning on 2 Demolishers + Hammer of Sunderance. I know sponsons are /good.../... I could bring multi-meltas after the price break lmao.

Sponsonless does have certain benefits. They are easier to fit in small gaps and harder to capture in assault. If you are planning to move then a simple demolisher, maybe with a storm bolter, could work.

 Trickstick wrote:
Sponsonless does have certain benefits. They are easier to fit in small gaps and harder to capture in assault. If you are planning to move then a simple demolisher, maybe with a storm bolter, could work.

If sponsonless, should Hull Lascannons still be a thing? And should they be Vostroyan for range, Tallarn (should bring sponsons :X) for extra 6" move, or Catachan for re-rolls, do you think?

Honestly, anything that is not Tallarn is beyond my practical experience for 8th Edition. However, Leman Russ loadouts have been a bit of a fixation of mine since 3rd Edition, so I like to think I have some theory experience on them. In fact, my old-style russes have gone through a fair few iterations over the years.

If I was not going Tallarn, I think my next port of call would just be long ranged stationary tanks. Las/plas executioners or standard battlecannons would be my go to. I will full admit that I see the -1 to hit as a really bad debuff, maybe I overreact to it in fact. A TC would still hit on a 4+, which isn't horrible.

I have been thinking of an old idea I had, which was a fireball demolisher using ambush. The tactic fell down in the past because ambushing prevented double shooting the turret. Howver, the new stratagem helps overcome this. You ambush and then use the Tallarn order to get in triple flamer range. Add a couple of infantry squads for some support, maybe along with a Tu'sakh officer for orders, and you have a nice little force.

BTW, I am using this page as a reference for weapon comparisons. I haven't checked the maths though, and so am making a bit of an assumption that it is accurate. I guess that is bit naughty.

Well the turret doesn't give a crap if you move or not. So on sponsonless tanks you are getting -1 To-Hit on a single heavy bolter, which is meh..

What is your stance on Conquerors? They can't be tank commanders but they do get a nice boost to turret fire power. I can definitely see them running sponsonless with little issue. I just don't know if they are still worth it now that commanders are cheaper. +1bs and orders vs possible reroll to hit.

I could see a catachan spearhead with 2 commanders and 3 conquerors possibly working out. Again, depends on how you rate conquerors vs commanders. you would have the added benefit of obsec too.

I don't own any conquerors and they're OOP. I could convert some.

The issue is that I am looking for anti-tank solutions, to things like Knights, and I am not sure Str 8 really cuts the mustard.

I am willing to look mostly anywhere as well. I have a Macharius, too. Or I would be willing to chase down a battery of artillery, or anything. Basically I have about 1k points to spend on support for the Emperor's Blade I have been talking about.

Did you rule out a Shadowsword? I know they are a bit of a risk though. Other than that, you have basilisks, manticores and mass lascannons. Maybe a Valdor, although I get the feeling that the Valdor is a victim of being too expensive for what it does.

 Trickstick wrote:
Did you rule out a Shadowsword? I know they are a bit of a risk though. Other than that, you have basilisks, manticores and mass lascannons. Maybe a Valdor, although I get the feeling that the Valdor is a victim of being too expensive for what it does.

No, I haven't ruled out a Shadowsword. They get one-shot pretty easily though. I also own some Valdors, but 370 base is *bad* for what it does.

Mass indirect fire or Leman Russes, it sounds like. Demolishers and the Hammer of Sunderance perhaps.

The Shadowsword getting one shotted isn't that big of a deal for it's points, because you gotta consider that it's 7% more expensive than las/plas executioners, and it's also 7% more wounds. Since you're limited on how many tank commanders you can take anyway, taking Pask + 3 Tank Commanders + a Shadowsword for an armored core of your army is the strongest armored formation I can think of.

Plus, if you get to go first... that Knight is getting completely nuked.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Demolishers and the Hammer of Sunderance perhaps.

That is my go to. I'm still undecided on taking a Shadowsword, especially taking into account Ambush. You could also do stuff like taking the new drop formation and having melta-scions get within 6". Or the classic melta vets in a blade formation.

Melta vets would be something that tempts me but they are no longer the best option, even among infantry. Melta got hit hard in 8th.

Anybody still using Scions to any major effect? I was thinking about making a non-competitive Scion/Knight list just for the aesthetics.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have a Macharius, too.

Maybe you can proxy it as a LRBT? It's sure not going to help you as a Macharius, those rules are utter . Worse firepower than a LRBT at over twice the cost.

 Trickstick wrote:
Maybe a Valdor, although I get the feeling that the Valdor is a victim of being too expensive for what it does.

You feel correctly. The Valdor is just bad, it costs almost as much as a Shadowsword but has much worse firepower. It makes a decent proxy as a Shadowsword though, if your opponent is willing to be flexible on the size/footprint issue.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
No, I haven't ruled out a Shadowsword. They get one-shot pretty easily though.

It can get one-shot, but so can anything that can match its firepower. Its durability per point is pretty good, and if you get to shoot first god help whatever is on the other end of that gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well the turret doesn't give a crap if you move or not. So on sponsonless tanks you are getting -1 To-Hit on a single heavy bolter, which is meh..

Two things:

1) Tallarn tanks take sponsons and hull LCs. Why wouldn't you?

2) JSJ is worth is weight in gold. Take tank commanders, play with a decent amount of terrain, and you can JSJ your way out of trouble while still keeping up a good level of firepower.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't own any conquerors and they're OOP. I could convert some.

The issue is that I am looking for anti-tank solutions, to things like Knights, and I am not sure Str 8 really cuts the mustard.

I am willing to look mostly anywhere as well. I have a Macharius, too. Or I would be willing to chase down a battery of artillery, or anything. Basically I have about 1k points to spend on support for the Emperor's Blade I have been talking about.

Ez to convert. Just put a storm bolter on the turret in line with the barrel of the conqueror Cannon