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.

With the Battle Brothers FAQ rule, is it actually possible to bring a detachment of Renegades and Heretics along with a CSM force or a Daemon force and still be battle forged? I was thinking about picking up their FW book just for kicks, but after glancing at one or two of the entries, the only common Key Word I saw was "Chaos" which won't cut it anymore. Am I missing something or are R&H completely on their own?

You can field them together in separate detachments, but not the same detachment.

Yep, the army must share a keyword such as <CHAOS> but each detachment must be its own <LEGION>, <REGIMENT> etc.

You can still take an army with CHAOS as the shared keyword (or Imperium etc), Battle Brothers doesn't change that. If you read it carefully you'll see that it only restricts what the shared keyword can be for detachments, not the army as a whole.

I am a silly goose and have been understanding that rule completely wrong! I usually play Mono-Slaanesh so it never really came up since all my units have the Slaanesh key word, but I saw that Covenant thing and thought I couldn't take them. Thanks for the quick answers!

Kias wrote:
I am a silly goose and have been understanding that rule completely wrong! I usually play Mono-Slaanesh so it never really came up since all my units have the Slaanesh key word, but I saw that Covenant thing and thought I couldn't take them. Thanks for the quick answers!

Bear in mind though, to unlock the covenant the R&H commander needs to be warlord, and he IS squishy.

I did see that, thanks. I was mostly looking to get a few more indirect fire options or fun cheap units to mix in to my army. I have a traitor guard sort of feel already, so mixing these guys in is an easy fit. Access to IG vehicles is a plus, though only having the index isn't quite as exciting. I basically have a solid 1500 point list and am figuring out what to spend my 500 points on for my core 2000 point Slaanesh Army.

You can totally bring Renegades and Heretics in their own detachment beside your Chaos Marines.

The main thing is, Renegades and Heretics kinda suck..... A Lot....

The Slaanesh Covenant also doesn't do much for them, in my experience.

And yeah, your Warlord will die if anything so much as looks at him funny.

 ph34r wrote:
You can totally bring Renegades and Heretics in their own detachment beside your Chaos Marines.

The main thing is, Renegades and Heretics kinda suck..... A Lot....

I mean, Marauders aren't bad.

Everything else is fairly terrible though.

Niiru wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
You can totally bring Renegades and Heretics in their own detachment beside your Chaos Marines.

The main thing is, Renegades and Heretics kinda suck..... A Lot....

I mean, Marauders aren't bad.

Everything else is fairly terrible though.

Marauders are very cool, yeah, but you can't build an army around Rule of Three actually good units...

 ph34r wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
You can totally bring Renegades and Heretics in their own detachment beside your Chaos Marines.

The main thing is, Renegades and Heretics kinda suck..... A Lot....

I mean, Marauders aren't bad.

Everything else is fairly terrible though.

Marauders are very cool, yeah, but you can't build an army around Rule of Three actually good units...

No, I agree, a pure R&H list would be pretty terrible.

But the OP was talking about adding a detachment to a CSM or Daemons army.

1 Commander (plasma pistol, maul)
2x 5-Man squads of Stalker Marauders, double plasma gun and power maul on champions
Enforcer, plasma pistol, maul (just for the 12th body and 3rd elite slot, the morale rule is ignored with marauders)
Chimera


Thats a 300 point vanguard, getting you 1CP and 10 plasma shots, along with something like 26 attacks (10 of them S5 AP-1), and double flamers on the chimera.

I mean there are better units out there for sure, but that's not too bad at all. Is what I was considering adding to my Alpha Legion.

Niiru wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
You can totally bring Renegades and Heretics in their own detachment beside your Chaos Marines.

The main thing is, Renegades and Heretics kinda suck..... A Lot....

I mean, Marauders aren't bad.

Everything else is fairly terrible though.

Marauders are very cool, yeah, but you can't build an army around Rule of Three actually good units...

No, I agree, a pure R&H list would be pretty terrible.

But the OP was talking about adding a detachment to a CSM or Daemons army.

1 Commander (plasma pistol, maul)
2x 5-Man squads of Stalker Marauders, double plasma gun and power maul on champions
Enforcer, plasma pistol, maul (just for the 12th body and 3rd elite slot, the morale rule is ignored with marauders)
Chimera


Thats a 300 point vanguard, getting you 1CP and 10 plasma shots, along with something like 26 attacks (10 of them S5 AP-1), and double flamers on the chimera.

I mean there are better units out there for sure, but that's not too bad at all. Is what I was considering adding to my Alpha Legion.

Yeah, something similar to this is what I had in mind, though I hadn't considered the transport or Enforcer. Stalker marauders look like they would be helpful in my list as I play more ITC format games since infantry in ruins is a lot more powerful there than in standard play. I was also eyeballing some heavy weapon mortar teams since they are dirt cheap. I get 5+ BS is garbage, but at 24 pts I feel like I can fit that in for backline objective control that can actually reach out and touch something on the board. I feel like it's better than leaving 40 points of cultists to do nothing back there.

Maybe I should make a separate thread for this question, but for anyone who runs marauder stalkers, do you really pony up for the plasma? I feel like I would almost be better off with grenade launchers considering it saves like 16 points. That is half the cost of the entire base unit. And since like everything and it's mom has invuln saves out the wazoo, I just don't see that plasma being as useful as it used to be. I am also tempted by having sniper rifles since those are toys I never get to play with as Chaos.

Kias wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
You can totally bring Renegades and Heretics in their own detachment beside your Chaos Marines.

The main thing is, Renegades and Heretics kinda suck..... A Lot....

I mean, Marauders aren't bad.

Everything else is fairly terrible though.

Marauders are very cool, yeah, but you can't build an army around Rule of Three actually good units...

No, I agree, a pure R&H list would be pretty terrible.

But the OP was talking about adding a detachment to a CSM or Daemons army.

1 Commander (plasma pistol, maul)
2x 5-Man squads of Stalker Marauders, double plasma gun and power maul on champions
Enforcer, plasma pistol, maul (just for the 12th body and 3rd elite slot, the morale rule is ignored with marauders)
Chimera


Thats a 300 point vanguard, getting you 1CP and 10 plasma shots, along with something like 26 attacks (10 of them S5 AP-1), and double flamers on the chimera.

I mean there are better units out there for sure, but that's not too bad at all. Is what I was considering adding to my Alpha Legion.

Yeah, something similar to this is what I had in mind, though I hadn't considered the transport or Enforcer. Stalker marauders look like they would be helpful in my list as I play more ITC format games since infantry in ruins is a lot more powerful there than in standard play. I was also eyeballing some heavy weapon mortar teams since they are dirt cheap. I get 5+ BS is garbage, but at 24 pts I feel like I can fit that in for backline objective control that can actually reach out and touch something on the board. I feel like it's better than leaving 40 points of cultists to do nothing back there.

Maybe I should make a separate thread for this question, but for anyone who runs marauder stalkers, do you really pony up for the plasma? I feel like I would almost be better off with grenade launchers considering it saves like 16 points. That is half the cost of the entire base unit. And since like everything and it's mom has invuln saves out the wazoo, I just don't see that plasma being as useful as it used to be. I am also tempted by having sniper rifles since those are toys I never get to play with as Chaos.

Grenade launchers are an interesting choice... You get a lot more attacks with them, but they're pretty weak. Might be worth plugging the numbers into mathhammer and seeing what comes up. I imagine they'd be slightly better against GEQ, but worse for anything else. They are cheaper though.

Snipers were one I considered too, I think it was 35 points for a maruder squad with 2 sniper rifles. Problem is, their snipers are pretty terrible, and the +1 mortal wound only happens on a wound of 6 (after having to actually hit in the first place). I think I worked out that a single unit of snipers will only get a single mortal wound in every other game they are played in. Not battle round, GAME. So you need at least 7/8 squads of them to get a single mortal wound per turn.

Which, for their points, might actually not be as terrible as it sounds... but it sounded pretty terrible and spammy to me so I decided on plasma/melta instead. But grenade launchers could work for anti-horde I guess, honestly not sure.

 ph34r wrote:
You can totally bring Renegades and Heretics in their own detachment beside your Chaos Marines.

The main thing is, Renegades and Heretics kinda suck..... A Lot....

Really depends: Militia got nerfed and buffed the most and are in a wierd spot and let's face it, in 7th militia was THE troop unit every faction wanted to have, versatile, adaptable, and most importantly could be interacted with via arch demagogue. (probably also undercosted, especially when one went full squad size with Master of the horde and still payed flat militia training cost for the whole squad.)

As for the actuall army, it certainly is not in the top lists (anymore cough 7th 2+ recycling and 3+ cover cough) but you can still win.

Stuff like leman russes are still great. R&H mortar teams are more effective then their IG counterpart via sheer volume, Morale can be an absolute non issue with enforcers, Marauders are probably one of the best 6ppm models in the game atm, psy is decent enough, especially warpflux can be devastating.
Disciples are plain better then IG veterans.

What really hurts R&H is the lackluster covenants (especially the nurgle one, that one stinks in more then one way) Also no bubbles beyond the banners which are also not really good enough to justify or the command vox, which is necesary if you want to run militia.
No daemon engines, no more battlebrothers, and literally an army that lived off the customization options it had, that got downgraded to a group of murder hobos which have raided an IG arsenal for the shere idocity of it and worship the pantheon for the lulz probably. Oh and don't mention the nerf to Malefic lords, these guys are now literally useless, might aswell field the coven instead.

For OP, don't take R&H for the troop choices, just don't, make spearheads of elite detachments. Cultists are still better for dirt cheap cannonfodder and gain in the CSM codex acess to recycling and other nice CP effective options.
Alternatively take a battalion for 170pts which is cheaper then the average IG cp farm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

Kias wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 ph34r wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
You can totally bring Renegades and Heretics in their own detachment beside your Chaos Marines.

The main thing is, Renegades and Heretics kinda suck..... A Lot....

I mean, Marauders aren't bad.

Everything else is fairly terrible though.

Marauders are very cool, yeah, but you can't build an army around Rule of Three actually good units...

No, I agree, a pure R&H list would be pretty terrible.

But the OP was talking about adding a detachment to a CSM or Daemons army.

1 Commander (plasma pistol, maul)
2x 5-Man squads of Stalker Marauders, double plasma gun and power maul on champions
Enforcer, plasma pistol, maul (just for the 12th body and 3rd elite slot, the morale rule is ignored with marauders)
Chimera


Thats a 300 point vanguard, getting you 1CP and 10 plasma shots, along with something like 26 attacks (10 of them S5 AP-1), and double flamers on the chimera.

I mean there are better units out there for sure, but that's not too bad at all. Is what I was considering adding to my Alpha Legion.

Yeah, something similar to this is what I had in mind, though I hadn't considered the transport or Enforcer. Stalker marauders look like they would be helpful in my list as I play more ITC format games since infantry in ruins is a lot more powerful there than in standard play. I was also eyeballing some heavy weapon mortar teams since they are dirt cheap. I get 5+ BS is garbage, but at 24 pts I feel like I can fit that in for backline objective control that can actually reach out and touch something on the board. I feel like it's better than leaving 40 points of cultists to do nothing back there.

Maybe I should make a separate thread for this question, but for anyone who runs marauder stalkers, do you really pony up for the plasma? I feel like I would almost be better off with grenade launchers considering it saves like 16 points. That is half the cost of the entire base unit. And since like everything and it's mom has invuln saves out the wazoo, I just don't see that plasma being as useful as it used to be. I am also tempted by having sniper rifles since those are toys I never get to play with as Chaos.

Grenade launchers are an interesting choice... You get a lot more attacks with them, but they're pretty weak. Might be worth plugging the numbers into mathhammer and seeing what comes up. I imagine they'd be slightly better against GEQ, but worse for anything else. They are cheaper though.

Snipers were one I considered too, I think it was 35 points for a maruder squad with 2 sniper rifles. Problem is, their snipers are pretty terrible, and the +1 mortal wound only happens on a wound of 6 (after having to actually hit in the first place). I think I worked out that a single unit of snipers will only get a single mortal wound in every other game they are played in. Not battle round, GAME. So you need at least 7/8 squads of them to get a single mortal wound per turn.

Which, for their points, might actually not be as terrible as it sounds... but it sounded pretty terrible and spammy to me so I decided on plasma/melta instead. But grenade launchers could work for anti-horde I guess, honestly not sure.

First off:
WRONG: Enforcer takes precedence over the marauder morale rule, SO HE WILL SHOOT THEM AND THAT WILL SUCK, ALOT!
Secondly: 5 Marauders with 2 sniperrifles cost 34 pts. 35 if you get a Bolter for the Chief. (The goal also is not to actually kill stuff via mortal rounds, but to do backfield security and chip damage against that pesky IG commander.
Thirdly: Nade launchers are seriously under apprechiated, even on marauders they generally wield good results. Plasma is more something when you expect armor of 3+ or 2+ en masse and even then it isn't too terrible to have fielded a nade launcher.

Not Online!!! wrote:

First off:
WRONG: Enforcer takes precedence over the marauder morale rule, SO HE WILL SHOOT THEM AND THAT WILL SUCK, ALOT!

Has this been FAQ'd? Or has there been some kind of tournament judgement on it?

Because RAW -

The Enforcer rule only takes effect "Whenever a R&H unit must take a morale test".

The Maruders rule - "Whenever you must take a morale test, INSTEAD of taking the test, roll a D6..."

So the Marauders rule says that they don't take a test, they instead roll a D6. As no test is being taken by the unit, then the enforcers rule doesn't activate.


I mean I guess you could argue that both rules are activated at the exact same time, but the Enforcers rule specifically only happens when a morale test is taken, and the Marauders rule says that no test is taken, so it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

But then there may have been an official errata saying otherwise, or an FAQ that changed the wording, which is fine but I haven't seen anything.


Edit: However you can just take another unit of marauders for the same cost as the enforcer, it just means one less decent gun/fighter in the chimera. Not a particularly big deal either way. You could get that single sniper unit which -may- do a single wound per game.

Thanks for the pointers! I was mostly ignoring the troops, though I did consider that R&H gives a morale resistant cultist blob option for CSM that don't want to take Abaddon thanks to the enforcer. That said, it doesn't feel worth giving up Tide of Traitors and you really hit a point where too many cultists just aren't accomplishing a lot.

The top three I was thinking of including were Mortar HW teams, Marauders (not sure on loadout), and possibly a couple sentinels.

Basically I want cheap units that are just barely threatening enough to not be ignored. I lean towards grenade launchers on the marauders because they are versatile enough to threaten any infantry unit I come across and can potentially chip at armor if no other targets present themself. Sure, plasma does this to, but for a big point increase on a unit that, while not super squishy, is still pretty easy to kill. There is also that whole, dips out on a 1 thing, so less points tied in, the better. Snipers are specifically for going against IG, Tau, and, more than anything, Orks. The mortal wounds aren't really what I would go in hoping for, just some S4 pressure that discourages free movement for those important aura providers and support characters. 6 BS 3+, S4 shots is nothing to sneeze at for non-MEQ characters and, if nothing else, should make the opponent nervous. Honestly if I wasn't playing ITC terrain rules, snipers would be an easier sell, but it is a lot harder to draw a reliable bead on characters with actual LOS blocking terrain.

The Sentinels are still a complete toss up, but I have a reasonable amount of armor on the table already and they would be a tasty target for anti-tank that might let more important units live while still being helpful if they get their shots off. Not sold here, though if I was I feel like missiles would be the way to go. Lets them contribute no matter what I am shooting at.

Oh, and the Rogue Psyker Coven actually don't seem terrible. Reliable d6 mortal wounds from a tanky unit that can also reliably deny those clutch psychic powers seems worth 100 points to me, though everyone seems to not like them. I get they have no offense, but I can't remember the last time my CSM Sorcerer really made a big impact that wasn't in the psychic phase anyway.

Niiru wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

First off:
WRONG: Enforcer takes precedence over the marauder morale rule, SO HE WILL SHOOT THEM AND THAT WILL SUCK, ALOT!

Has this been FAQ'd? Or has there been some kind of tournament judgement on it?

Because RAW -

The Enforcer rule only takes effect "Whenever a R&H unit must take a morale test".

The Maruders rule - "Whenever you must take a morale test, INSTEAD of taking the test, roll a D6..."

So the Marauders rule says that they don't take a test, they instead roll a D6. As no test is being taken by the unit, then the enforcers rule doesn't activate.


I mean I guess you could argue that both rules are activated at the exact same time, but the Enforcers rule specifically only happens when a morale test is taken, and the Marauders rule says that no test is taken, so it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

But then there may have been an official errata saying otherwise, or an FAQ that changed the wording, which is fine but I haven't seen anything.

Nope, the enforcer stops any morale test, before it happens and proceeds to kill d3 models for an Auto pass.
Basically he skips the test whilest marauders just replace the test, which is the problem.
Basically he automatically applies before the Marauders.

You also only quoted the condition of "balefull judge"
The full rule is :" whenever a R&h infantry unit within 3" of this model must take a moral test, do NOT take the test. instead, d3 models in the unit are slain and the test automatically passed. "

Which leads to the problem that he skips, whilest the Marauders just replace. Best case that is, worst case would be when they dual trigger, you lose d3 and then the whole squad for in it for the money.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kias wrote:
Thanks for the pointers! I was mostly ignoring the troops, though I did consider that R&H gives a morale resistant cultist blob option for CSM that don't want to take Abaddon thanks to the enforcer. That said, it doesn't feel worth giving up Tide of Traitors and you really hit a point where too many cultists just aren't accomplishing a lot.

The top three I was thinking of including were Mortar HW teams, Marauders (not sure on loadout), and possibly a couple sentinels.

Basically I want cheap units that are just barely threatening enough to not be ignored. I lean towards grenade launchers on the marauders because they are versatile enough to threaten any infantry unit I come across and can potentially chip at armor if no other targets present themself. Sure, plasma does this to, but for a big point increase on a unit that, while not super squishy, is still pretty easy to kill. There is also that whole, dips out on a 1 thing, so less points tied in, the better. Snipers are specifically for going against IG, Tau, and, more than anything, Orks. The mortal wounds aren't really what I would go in hoping for, just some S4 pressure that discourages free movement for those important aura providers and support characters. 6 BS 3+, S4 shots is nothing to sneeze at for non-MEQ characters and, if nothing else, should make the opponent nervous. Honestly if I wasn't playing ITC terrain rules, snipers would be an easier sell, but it is a lot harder to draw a reliable bead on characters with actual LOS blocking terrain.

The Sentinels are still a complete toss up, but I have a reasonable amount of armor on the table already and they would be a tasty target for anti-tank that might let more important units live while still being helpful if they get their shots off. Not sold here, though if I was I feel like missiles would be the way to go. Lets them contribute no matter what I am shooting at.

Oh, and the Rogue Psyker Coven actually don't seem terrible. Reliable d6 mortal wounds from a tanky unit that can also reliably deny those clutch psychic powers seems worth 100 points to me, though everyone seems to not like them. I get they have no offense, but I can't remember the last time my CSM Sorcerer really made a big impact that wasn't in the psychic phase anyway.

Scout sentinels are better and cheaper, also you gain acess to the codex of am btw.
Alternativly consider Salamander Scout tanks. Surprisingly versatile thingys for their cost.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

First off:
WRONG: Enforcer takes precedence over the marauder morale rule, SO HE WILL SHOOT THEM AND THAT WILL SUCK, ALOT!

Has this been FAQ'd? Or has there been some kind of tournament judgement on it?

Because RAW -

The Enforcer rule only takes effect "Whenever a R&H unit must take a morale test".

The Maruders rule - "Whenever you must take a morale test, INSTEAD of taking the test, roll a D6..."

So the Marauders rule says that they don't take a test, they instead roll a D6. As no test is being taken by the unit, then the enforcers rule doesn't activate.


I mean I guess you could argue that both rules are activated at the exact same time, but the Enforcers rule specifically only happens when a morale test is taken, and the Marauders rule says that no test is taken, so it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

But then there may have been an official errata saying otherwise, or an FAQ that changed the wording, which is fine but I haven't seen anything.

Nope, the enforcer stops any morale test, before it happens and proceeds to kill d3 models for an Auto pass.
Basically he skips the test whilest marauders just replace the test, which is the problem.
Basically he automatically applies before the Marauders.

You also only quoted the condition of "balefull judge"
The full rule is :" whenever a R&h infantry unit within 3" of this model must take a moral test, do NOT take the test. instead, d3 models in the unit are slain and the test automatically passed. "

Which leads to the problem that he skips, whilest the Marauders just replace. Best case that is, worst case would be when they dual trigger, you lose d3 and then the whole squad for in it for the money.

You're saying that the Enforcer stops the test, while the Marauders replace the test... but that's just semantics. They both stop the test.

The Marauder rules says "instead of taking the test", which means they stop the test, and replace it with their "in it for the money" test instead, which is not a morale test and so does not trigger the Enforcer.

Like I said, it can be argued both ways, though standard logic would be in favour of my version of the rule as it's the Marauders own rule that should trigger first as they're essentially 'local', and then the outsiders would trigger afterwards. But there's no actual rule in 40k which says what order these things would trigger, I am just using a logical order (which isn't upheld by any actual rules, but then neither is the opposite).

So it would be down to the judge at the end of the day. But saying that the Enforcer takes priority because it stops the test is incorrect, as they both stop the test, they just use different terminology to do so (which is pretty typical of 40k rules it seems lol).

I do agree though that, at worst, it could be ruled that BOTH rules activate simultaneously (I did say this in my original post).

If you're playing a friendly, there's no reason for the opponent to rule against you on this really. IF you're going to a tournament, you'd have to get a ruling before you go. But either way, it might just be easier to take that sniper squad instead.

Niiru is also right though, what the replacement of said enforcer he suggested should be.
Btw since marauders base profile allready includes 2 A there is imho no need for an additional capable fighter.
If you want however, field another commander, he is 5pts cheaper and therefore you could allready buy an energy weapon (mace for s4 threshold is recommended), or a plasma pistol

Kias wrote:
Thanks for the pointers! I was mostly ignoring the troops, though I did consider that R&H gives a morale resistant cultist blob option for CSM that don't want to take Abaddon thanks to the enforcer. That said, it doesn't feel worth giving up Tide of Traitors and you really hit a point where too many cultists just aren't accomplishing a lot.

The top three I was thinking of including were Mortar HW teams, Marauders (not sure on loadout), and possibly a couple sentinels.

Basically I want cheap units that are just barely threatening enough to not be ignored. I lean towards grenade launchers on the marauders because they are versatile enough to threaten any infantry unit I come across and can potentially chip at armor if no other targets present themself. Sure, plasma does this to, but for a big point increase on a unit that, while not super squishy, is still pretty easy to kill. There is also that whole, dips out on a 1 thing, so less points tied in, the better. Snipers are specifically for going against IG, Tau, and, more than anything, Orks. The mortal wounds aren't really what I would go in hoping for, just some S4 pressure that discourages free movement for those important aura providers and support characters. 6 BS 3+, S4 shots is nothing to sneeze at for non-MEQ characters and, if nothing else, should make the opponent nervous. Honestly if I wasn't playing ITC terrain rules, snipers would be an easier sell, but it is a lot harder to draw a reliable bead on characters with actual LOS blocking terrain.

The Sentinels are still a complete toss up, but I have a reasonable amount of armor on the table already and they would be a tasty target for anti-tank that might let more important units live while still being helpful if they get their shots off. Not sold here, though if I was I feel like missiles would be the way to go. Lets them contribute no matter what I am shooting at.

Oh, and the Rogue Psyker Coven actually don't seem terrible. Reliable d6 mortal wounds from a tanky unit that can also reliably deny those clutch psychic powers seems worth 100 points to me, though everyone seems to not like them. I get they have no offense, but I can't remember the last time my CSM Sorcerer really made a big impact that wasn't in the psychic phase anyway.

Scout sentinels are better and cheaper, also you gain acess to the codex of am btw.
Alternativly consider Salamander Scout tanks. Surprisingly versatile thingys for their cost.

Are you sure about that? Since the book specifically references the index, my understanding was that you only get Index versions of AM toys. Don't know how much of a difference there is between the two, mind you, as I only have ever played Chaos, so maybe it's moot.

And aren't the scouts only 5 points cheaper? I don't feel like paying 5 points for a +1 to my armor save is a bad deal. If I am using them with missiles, I don't really need that scout move either.

Niiru wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

First off:
WRONG: Enforcer takes precedence over the marauder morale rule, SO HE WILL SHOOT THEM AND THAT WILL SUCK, ALOT!

Has this been FAQ'd? Or has there been some kind of tournament judgement on it?

Because RAW -

The Enforcer rule only takes effect "Whenever a R&H unit must take a morale test".

The Maruders rule - "Whenever you must take a morale test, INSTEAD of taking the test, roll a D6..."

So the Marauders rule says that they don't take a test, they instead roll a D6. As no test is being taken by the unit, then the enforcers rule doesn't activate.


I mean I guess you could argue that both rules are activated at the exact same time, but the Enforcers rule specifically only happens when a morale test is taken, and the Marauders rule says that no test is taken, so it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

But then there may have been an official errata saying otherwise, or an FAQ that changed the wording, which is fine but I haven't seen anything.

Nope, the enforcer stops any morale test, before it happens and proceeds to kill d3 models for an Auto pass.
Basically he skips the test whilest marauders just replace the test, which is the problem.
Basically he automatically applies before the Marauders.

You also only quoted the condition of "balefull judge"
The full rule is :" whenever a R&h infantry unit within 3" of this model must take a moral test, do NOT take the test. instead, d3 models in the unit are slain and the test automatically passed. "

Which leads to the problem that he skips, whilest the Marauders just replace. Best case that is, worst case would be when they dual trigger, you lose d3 and then the whole squad for in it for the money.

You're saying that the Enforcer stops the test, while the Marauders replace the test... but that's just semantics. They both stop the test.

The Marauder rules says "instead of taking the test", which means they stop the test, and replace it with their "in it for the money" test instead, which is not a morale test and so does not trigger the Enforcer.

Like I said, it can be argued both ways, though standard logic would be in favour of my version of the rule as it's the Marauders own rule that should trigger first as they're essentially 'local', and then the outsiders would trigger afterwards. But there's no actual rule in 40k which says what order these things would trigger, I am just using a logical order (which isn't upheld by any actual rules, but then neither is the opposite).

So it would be down to the judge at the end of the day. But saying that the Enforcer takes priority because it stops the test is incorrect, as they both stop the test, they just use different terminology to do so (which is pretty typical of 40k rules it seems lol).

I do agree though that, at worst, it could be ruled that BOTH rules activate simultaneously (I did say this in my original post).

If you're playing a friendly, there's no reason for the opponent to rule against you on this really. IF you're going to a tournament, you'd have to get a ruling before you go. But either way, it might just be easier to take that sniper squad instead.

Dude i quoted the full rule. You do not take the test for the enforcer.
The Marauders just replace (instead vs not)
That is no semantics.
Instead is not stop. And this is the rope which hangs all squads around a enforcer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Logically speaking we have the base rule in regards to morale: if you take losses you must make a morale check:

loically: IF x (losses) then Mcheck:

Moral check is d6 +losses compared to LD, difference over LD is losses.

Marauders come in and say instead of Mcheck (d6 plus losses vs LD value) IF Mcheck needed; use "in it " instead of the normal Mcheck.

So for Marauders: IF must Mcheck instead use "In it" but up to this point they are regular and quasi have a morale check.

Now the enforcer says:
If must Mcheck, do NOT take Mcheck if within of 3 " around enforcer, instead d3 losses for auto pass of Mcheck. ---> this is the skip i meant which is the deciding factor. Basically so long a unit is within 3 " of a enforcer it never takes a morale check, it just loses d3 models and continues on so there can be no morale check which could be replaced by stuff like in it for the money.


Also it is irrelevant from where the rules stems (within the unit or from a bystander,) so long it's conditions are met so long will they trigger.



AT OP in regards to Codex vs Index
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You always must take the most up to date rules for units.
If said unit is not in a codex you take the index rules and price instead.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and for AM toys it makes a biiiig difference, especially leman russes for exemple.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

First off:
WRONG: Enforcer takes precedence over the marauder morale rule, SO HE WILL SHOOT THEM AND THAT WILL SUCK, ALOT!

Has this been FAQ'd? Or has there been some kind of tournament judgement on it?

Because RAW -

The Enforcer rule only takes effect "Whenever a R&H unit must take a morale test".

The Maruders rule - "Whenever you must take a morale test, INSTEAD of taking the test, roll a D6..."

So the Marauders rule says that they don't take a test, they instead roll a D6. As no test is being taken by the unit, then the enforcers rule doesn't activate.


I mean I guess you could argue that both rules are activated at the exact same time, but the Enforcers rule specifically only happens when a morale test is taken, and the Marauders rule says that no test is taken, so it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

But then there may have been an official errata saying otherwise, or an FAQ that changed the wording, which is fine but I haven't seen anything.

Nope, the enforcer stops any morale test, before it happens and proceeds to kill d3 models for an Auto pass.
Basically he skips the test whilest marauders just replace the test, which is the problem.
Basically he automatically applies before the Marauders.

You also only quoted the condition of "balefull judge"
The full rule is :" whenever a R&h infantry unit within 3" of this model must take a moral test, do NOT take the test. instead, d3 models in the unit are slain and the test automatically passed. "

Which leads to the problem that he skips, whilest the Marauders just replace. Best case that is, worst case would be when they dual trigger, you lose d3 and then the whole squad for in it for the money.

You're saying that the Enforcer stops the test, while the Marauders replace the test... but that's just semantics. They both stop the test.

The Marauder rules says "instead of taking the test", which means they stop the test, and replace it with their "in it for the money" test instead, which is not a morale test and so does not trigger the Enforcer.

Like I said, it can be argued both ways, though standard logic would be in favour of my version of the rule as it's the Marauders own rule that should trigger first as they're essentially 'local', and then the outsiders would trigger afterwards. But there's no actual rule in 40k which says what order these things would trigger, I am just using a logical order (which isn't upheld by any actual rules, but then neither is the opposite).

So it would be down to the judge at the end of the day. But saying that the Enforcer takes priority because it stops the test is incorrect, as they both stop the test, they just use different terminology to do so (which is pretty typical of 40k rules it seems lol).

I do agree though that, at worst, it could be ruled that BOTH rules activate simultaneously (I did say this in my original post).

If you're playing a friendly, there's no reason for the opponent to rule against you on this really. IF you're going to a tournament, you'd have to get a ruling before you go. But either way, it might just be easier to take that sniper squad instead.

Dude i quoted the full rule. You do not take the test for the enforcer.
The Marauders just replace (instead vs not)
That is no semantics.
Instead is not stop. And this is the rope which hangs all squads around a enforcer.

Both rules use 'instead'. One rule just also happens to say "do not take the test", but it's superfluous, because if you're being told to do something else instead, then you are by default already not doing the original thing. So both rules do the exact same thing, so it only matters which one gets resolved first.

However as this is an argument about English language rather than actual rules or models, I propose we drop it. It's not helping the OP in either case, as at the end of the day whoever he plays against may have a totally different judgement.

I'm not going to reply on the subject again anyway.


Back on topic, I had seen some other people saying that the scout sentinels were the better option, but I'm honestly not sure why. I assume it's just because they die to the same things anyway, so saving points is generally more useful.

Oh, and also you're right about the second commander in the Chimera being an option, but then you still need a third elite for a vanguard.

However, you could instead add 3 units of MSU mutants or something, and go for a battallion. Or you could do both, and have a battallion and a vanguard for around 500 points. The enforcer would be much better used on keeping the big mob of troops in line.

Why MSU mutants?
That is, excuse me, a bad idea, since cultists are the same in price and actually can put up a decent enough fight.
Mutants only have one use in R&H and that is if you want to overrun an enemy in conjunction with an enforcer.
BTW Niiru i added the logic, (never thought my logical curse at univerisity would help me).

Just to be completly clear: you could also do the following, don't run any Marauders and replace them with 3x4 man command squad disciples. (that gives you acess to 3 special and 3 HWT's and fits in one chimera, take a coven and you should be golden.

BTW i hate autocorect and vow to only use my netbook from now on, so many appendeged posts. my bad.

If you want to go for a cheap Battalion as Niiru has suggested, take militia instead: you gain acess to mortars, so they can kemp bush and actually be usefull. Cultists are really better in the CSM codex, from legion traits, to tide and veterans stratagems to morale management, (cold and bitter also is a thing if you don't want to throw down abby btw.)

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why MSU mutants?
That is, excuse me, a bad idea, since cultists are the same in price and actually can put up a decent enough fight.
Mutants only have one use in R&H and that is if you want to overrun an enemy in conjunction with an enforcer.
BTW Niiru i added the logic, (never thought my logical curse at univerisity would help me).

Just to be completly clear: you could also do the following, don't run any Marauders and replace them with 3x4 man command squad disciples. (that gives you acess to 3 special and 3 HWT's and fits in one chimera, take a coven and you should be golden.

BTW i hate autocorect and vow to only use my netbook from now on, so many appendeged posts. my bad.

If you want to go for a cheap Battalion as Niiru has suggested, take militia instead: you gain acess to mortars, so they can kemp bush and actually be usefull. Cultists are really better in the CSM codex, from legion traits, to tide and veterans stratagems to morale management, (cold and bitter also is a thing if you don't want to throw down abby btw.)

I think you need to take additional disciples in order to get specials or HWT. So the minimum size of a disciple command squad is 7. Correct me if I am reading that wrong. It is the "other" in the wording that is throwing me off.

Kias wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why MSU mutants?
That is, excuse me, a bad idea, since cultists are the same in price and actually can put up a decent enough fight.
Mutants only have one use in R&H and that is if you want to overrun an enemy in conjunction with an enforcer.
BTW Niiru i added the logic, (never thought my logical curse at univerisity would help me).

Just to be completly clear: you could also do the following, don't run any Marauders and replace them with 3x4 man command squad disciples. (that gives you acess to 3 special and 3 HWT's and fits in one chimera, take a coven and you should be golden.

BTW i hate autocorect and vow to only use my netbook from now on, so many appendeged posts. my bad.

If you want to go for a cheap Battalion as Niiru has suggested, take militia instead: you gain acess to mortars, so they can kemp bush and actually be usefull. Cultists are really better in the CSM codex, from legion traits, to tide and veterans stratagems to morale management, (cold and bitter also is a thing if you don't want to throw down abby btw.)

I think you need to take additional disciples in order to get specials or HWT. So the minimum size of a disciple command squad is 7. Correct me if I am reading that wrong. It is the "other" in the wording that is throwing me off.

nope. The base FW index had a command squad at 4, until they fixed it and made it 4 -14 models in either CA or FAQ's.
Also you don't have to unlock additional weaponry via squad size for neither disciples nor command squad disciples, you always start with the maximum of options for your elites. The only scaling unlock R&H has is special weapons and heavy weapons for Militia (per 10 militia 1 heavy weapon team, per 5 militia 1 special weapon, for cultists per 10 cultists either stubber or flamer)

The "one other" , "two other" part is basically to differentiante the models you can upgrade equip in order to prevent you from forming a Hwt with a dude that allready carries the vox.
So basically so long you have bog standard disciples so long you can give each of them one of these options.
For exemple a command squad of 4
first disciple carries a command vox
One other/ second one gets a special weapon, let's say a plasma gun.
The third and the forth of said squad which until now did not get anything can form together a Hwt with an autocannon for exemple.

Hmm, well that is good to know! Thanks! I still think the special marauder rules puts them in the front running but that makes Disciples something I could potentially work with.

Kias wrote:
Hmm, well that is good to know! Thanks! I still think the special marauder rules puts them in the front running but that makes Disciples something I could potentially work with.

Command squad disciples
Those are not disciple squads.
Disciple squads =\= command squads even though both are made out of disciples.
Disciples themselves are 5-15 size and have no acess to command vox and flags but access to the base vox.
If you want to throw these in a Chimera use 5-6 man per squad, they also have a Champion unlike the command squad.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why MSU mutants?
That is, excuse me, a bad idea, since cultists are the same in price and actually can put up a decent enough fight.

Was pretty much just chosen at random. I wouldn't take cultists, as they're just straight up worse than CSM cultists for the same price, so if it was me I'd take the cultists from CSM and choose a different unit from R&H. But that's just because I prefer variety.

Militia and Mutants are both fairly uninspiring, but the combination of something like Mutants + Curse of Mutation + Unnatural Vigor seemed interesting. Could end up with +10 attacks on an MSU, along with rerolls of all hits and wounds. OR +1T, which would make them more marginally more survivable than the cultists. Though it's not guaranteed.

Niiru wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Why MSU mutants?
That is, excuse me, a bad idea, since cultists are the same in price and actually can put up a decent enough fight.

Was pretty much just chosen at random. I wouldn't take cultists, as they're just straight up worse than CSM cultists for the same price, so if it was me I'd take the cultists from CSM and choose a different unit from R&H. But that's just because I prefer variety.

Militia and Mutants are both fairly uninspiring, but the combination of something like Mutants + Curse of Mutation + Unnatural Vigor seemed interesting. Could end up with +10 attacks on an MSU, along with rerolls of all hits and wounds. OR +1T, which would make them more marginally more survivable than the cultists. Though it's not guaranteed.

Well that yes but atleast go the whole mile with the 50blob option
Militia is actually decent, give them a vox and a Chaos sigil and if you feel Generous some stubbers/mortars and watch how they somehow are still standing on that objective 3 turns under fire (seriously running 2-3 command squads with voxes in combination with vox+sigil militia makes them really annoying to remove.)