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.

So then, how are people building the models?

thinking here since units cannot split fire generally, except for "point defence" its a case of define a target and build for that, with secondary abilities as needed

For me here:

Marines - XIV Death Guard
Sicaran - both turret options, because why not? Role is defined as anti-armour, hence laser cannons on the sides (I've got printed ones aiming more anti infantry and anti light vehicles with heavy bolters and the auto cannons)

Predator - again both turret options, role is similar to the Sicaran, however of the three two have laser cannons and one has heavy bolters so there is some point defence in there

Solar Aux
Leman Russ - for now this is split, eventually will be two units, two Vanquisher/laser cannon and two Battle Cannon/Heavy Bolter. Former is anti armour, later is anti infantry
Malcador - pure anti infantry load out, aim is weaselling infantry from buildings and ruins, hence Demolisher (ignores cover, and maybe bring buildings down), Battle Cannon (to retain AP v infantry) & Heavy Bolters (because they will be up close)

I was digging into Predators last night and am thinking that cannon/heavy bolters are a trap choice.

Light and Light AT really kill them in my opinion, as well as the 5+ shots. Lascannon turret should hit with an Accurate 4+ shot. Lascannons can still kill infantry, losing -1 doesn't seem too crippling, while cannon Predators are fishing in a mirror match.

I'm thinking packs of lascannon Predators hunting armor, then cleaning up loose infantry if they live that long.

Similarly, I was looking at the Kratos and unless you really have to Bust a Bunker, why would you ever take the melta blastgun. Same with the auxiliary weapons-for as poor as shooting seems to be, lascannons having a 4+ and the ability to go after anything seems like a better option.

Well those melta's pretty darned effective at removing building with -8 for saves. Beats trying to shoot infantry from inside.

You trade it for the longer range shot. Which isn't any threat to infantry. So yea you lose long range hit at -1 but are threat to infantry

Wish they would just make things interchangeable these days...I know magnets are an option but these things are so small its pretty hard for most modellers id guess.

Im leaning towards the following from the Core (if anyone has opinions please say)

Predators- Turret Swap but AT Lascannon hulls
Sicarians - Not as bad with the turret swaps but AT Las Cannons in Sponsons


Predator AT Main Guns, 2x LC and 2x HB
Malcador AT Main Gun, Demolosher, AT LC in sponsons but not sure.



Predators Anti tank

For as small and light as the connections and bitz are, if I wanted to make anything modular I'd just do friction pins. I did offset friction pins for Titanicus stuff and it was fine.

For my Russ's its Vanquishers and lascannons as the range against marines is too good to pass up, Anti infantry can be handled by other things.

Malcadors its Vanq cannon again, demolisher and autocannons.

Baneblade is Baneblade cannon, autocannons.

I will be doing a dedicated battlecannon/HB Armouered company as well as Heavy flamers and Hellhammer cannon Baneblade for flushing out infantry from buildings

Assembling the Titan Armour plates.

Did the Traitor Legions still have Titans showing the Imperial Eagle or is it very much a case build it one way or the other from the options in the box?

VAYASEN wrote:
Assembling the Titan Armour plates.

Did the Traitor Legions still have Titans showing the Imperial Eagle or is it very much a case build it one way or the other from the options in the box?

It's the same warhound body, so one each fancy loyalist and traitor carapace and 2 blank carapaces, one with traitor style trim and one with loyalist. Same with shins iirc. Only issue is thigh armor, which has exactly one set in loyalist trim and one in heretic, though they are blank of insignia otherwise.

Think he's asking fluffwise, not what's in box.

Aka would it make sense to have say legio mortis with eagle symbol?

I am building a SA army, but I will probably stick just to Leman Russes (I am getting no Baneblades amd I will probably swap Malcadors for more Russes).

I will build my Russes for AT duty with turret Vanquisher + hull heavy bolter. Why the heavy bolter? I think Vanquisher is powerful enough for AT, and bolters (being point defense) can split fire + give some defense against assaulting infantry.

Anti-infantry will be done by aircraft, titans (if any), and my own infantry (Veletari mostly).

Should I keep the Malcadors, I would build them for anti-infantry: heavy bolters+demolisher+las-cannon turret (actually better vs infantry than battlecannon due to number of shots).

Opinions?

Think you need the Malcadors, same as marines need the Kratos to actually run the armoured company as you have a "heavy" compulsory slot

this is irritating as to me it should be possible to run a company of a single armoured type,. and have the heavies maybe as support slots

interesting choices and theories, my thanks all for this, much to ponder.

the only certainty in life is however I've built mine will be sub-optimal

I still can't get my head around multiple load-outs for 8mm scale miniatures. There were so many more graceful ways of handling unit efficacy against different target types (see the process used by Armageddon). And I don't think anyone would have not played the game because they couldn't choose from multiple sponsor loadouts on a Predator.

Instead the community groups are full of people stressing about what options to go with, and whether you can even see what they looking down onto the tabletop. I guess you will just need a "this unit is this, this unit is this" session before the game with your opponent, and hope you haven't had too hard a day at work so you can remember it all.

leopard wrote:
Think you need the Malcadors, same as marines need the Kratos to actually run the armoured company as you have a "heavy" compulsory slot

this is irritating as to me it should be possible to run a company of a single armoured type,. and have the heavies maybe as support slots

interesting choices and theories, my thanks all for this, much to ponder.

the only certainty in life is however I've built mine will be sub-optimal

The heavy compulsory detachment is made of superheavies (Baneblade/Hellhammer), not Malcadors (those are regular tanks).

I am not getting Baneblades nor Armoured formation. I am going to stick with Pioneer & Infnatry formations, they have plenty of support slots for armour and aircraft!!!

SU-152 wrote:

leopard wrote:
Think you need the Malcadors, same as marines need the Kratos to actually run the armoured company as you have a "heavy" compulsory slot

this is irritating as to me it should be possible to run a company of a single armoured type,. and have the heavies maybe as support slots

interesting choices and theories, my thanks all for this, much to ponder.

the only certainty in life is however I've built mine will be sub-optimal

The heavy compulsory detachment is made of superheavies (Baneblade/Hellhammer), not Malcadors (those are regular tanks).

I am not getting Baneblades nor Armoured formation. I am going to stick with Pioneer & Infnatry formations, they have plenty of support slots for armour and aircraft!!!

Ahh, had more looked to the Marine side, seems seriously odd to require a superheavy in an armoured formation, given they likely have different roles to the lighter tanks..

looks like basic infantry and pioneer here too then, I've got the potential to add a very nice shadowsword model, but then again even though its not got rules I for sure want the super heavies in their own formations


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
I still can't get my head around multiple load-outs for 8mm scale miniatures. There were so many more graceful ways of handling unit efficacy against different target types (see the process used by Armageddon). And I don't think anyone would have not played the game because they couldn't choose from multiple sponsor loadouts on a Predator.

Instead the community groups are full of people stressing about what options to go with, and whether you can even see what they looking down onto the tabletop. I guess you will just need a "this unit is this, this unit is this" session before the game with your opponent, and hope you haven't had too hard a day at work so you can remember it all.

does seem a tad odd, I'd have gone, for example with the Predators, with two load out options, and formations that were basically homogenous.

though there is the potential for say three battlecannons & one vanquisher for a "firefly" type effect

plan here is a pure WYSIWYG loadout for my own stuff, for the sake of sanity, far too confusing otherwise, 1st edition had varied weapons but generally fixed load outs, you picked unit "X" and this is what it got, like it or be shot by the commissar.

hopefully won't be too much "this week this unit has lascannons, except for that one which doesn't" stuff



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Indeed actually thinking about it, the armoured formations are downright odd and for SA potentially a problem

for marines its ok, just odd, two lots of predators, a lot of sicaran and some kratos, meah, deploy and work differently

for the SA though it means having a superheavy and some lighter tanks that are meant to be stick close to each other, even though they have very different roles.

really needs the ability for homogenous formations, hopefully comes back later to allow super heavy companies, and say a pure Leman Russ company, so they can have their own commander and go off to work as an actual formation

For anyone interested I made a quick calculation sheet of the 6 currently available tanks against different targets:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hRkAM-fD9BahV3Lruv7CHhSE31Zd0j97V53xquYGkro/edit?usp=sharing

The background colours should help to differentiate between weapon options.
The numbers after the targets are their saves.
For Knights the second number is the Ion Shield and its assumed its in effect, otherwise just look at the vehicle column as the Ion Shield is the only difference.
Same for Titans as the Void Shields are the only difference I didn't add them. If the Void shield is up you don't do damage anyway and if its down just look into the vehicle column.

A few interesting bits taken from this calculation and assuming that I didn't miss anything:

I can't see a setting I would take the Battlecannon Malcador. Its worse than the Lascannon against all targets by quite a big margin and the only advantage is 3" longer range. But if I want longer range I'd take the Vanquisher which has another 7" on top of that and is only slightly worse against infantry and better against everything else than the Battlecannon.
Also the Vanquisher is only better than the Lascannon against 2+ save vehicles and worse against Knights so I would only take it if I really need the range.

The Predator Lascannon also seems way better then the Predator cannon as its only slightly worse against infantry but way better against other things while having higher range

The Sicaran Plasma array is another situation like the Malcador Vanquisher where its only slightly better against 2+ save vehicles but alot worse against everything else and that isn't even taking into consideration that the autocannon rerolls hits against flyers.

interesting analysis, and something I suspect that represents a step GW flat out do not do, any perhaps wouldn't even see the need to do

I knew going with the battlecannon on Malcador would turn out to be pants on head.

though they are designated for fishing infantry out of holes and should not be firing at armour until they have no other targets..

on the plus side, there are only two of them

After another big game today (3000 points per side), some thoughts:

- Sicarans are gold: the autocannon turret is very good against all targets, on top of a very fast chassis. And the detachment is not expensive in points.

- Possibly broken: full bomb - Marauder. 3 bay bombs + 4 wings bombs. That's 7 x 4+ (3+ against structures) attacks at -2 AP. With no defense possibly, as bombing run takes place in the movement phase before any Skyfire shooting is possible. Just give them March order, wait a couple activations for the opponent to move something around, and send the Marauder to blast almost anything (it will utterly annihilate garrisoned infantry). Sending a pair or them is just like pressing the "delete" button.

- Battlecannon Malcador is indeed useless.

First off, its pretty clear that not making weapon options cost points was bad in the sense that almost everyone is fishing for the "best" builds and all options are not equally strong. Which will make Battle Cannon and Predator Cannon way less popular than they were in the lore.

Also, again, lascannons are pretty much king and will be everywhere. :/

So, I am building Predator Cannon + Heavy Bolter Predators. Because they were there and they are cool! Bit of a shame there are no rules options to add the pintle HB thats on the sprue for even more PD.

For me the jury is still out on the value of point defense. Firing in the Movement phase, before or after moving, is one of the few options akin to a true alternating activation game in LI. Give them Advance order, Blast some Infantry then move out of charge range/LOS. And fire at something else in the Advancing fire stage of the Combat phase w the main gun.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, re: wysiwyg. If you want to mix weapon loadout within a detachment, go full wysiwyg. Otherwise I'm cool with the opponent declaring this unit all has weapon X.

Especially now that we are all evaluating what roles we want our detachments to play. And that might change later on when we get other AP/AT options. E.g Vindicator laser destroyer should be a better AT option than Las Predators anyway and make them redundant-ish. I am guessing Armourbane trait. Similarly the Sicaran Venator should outshine the std Sic.

People are fishing for best builds anyway...Which are child's play to find points or not. If you don't want that then play with play group that doesn't fish for best builds because regardless of point system those who fish will fish anyway and 1st grader will find them out in first reading.

Dunno about lascannon. Heavy bolter sponsons have one big advantage. Point defence. Allowing you to attack both infantry and tank detachments during same turn and better overwatch means you are bit more protected vs park thunderhawk and charge in.

Also vs infantry better to hit isn't that much of help. 4+ or 5+ pretty much same as you can pretty much assume if you don't have base hit of 3+ or better you hit on 6's anyway against infantry. More shots better than 5+ to hit(which is in practice 6 to hit vs infantry anyway).

 westiebestie wrote:
First off, its pretty clear that not making weapon options cost points was bad in the sense that almost everyone is fishing for the "best" builds and all options are not equally strong. Which will make Battle Cannon and Predator Cannon way less popular than they were in the lore.

Yup, and this is why at least 50% of the new content/posts across social media for this game at the moment are "should I fit weapon X to X"-type posts. Rather than people showing their new minis or games, which is kind of sad. You just can't trust that the balance has been equitable, or even close to it, as GW has a poor track record in this area and you could make the miniature only to find you have effectively locked yourself in with a turnip.

I wouldn't even say there is a "best" build. There are certainly weapons that are the worst but I wouldn't say there is a clear best weapon for most of them.

For example on the Malcador the Battlecannon is clearly the worst one as it does way less damage against everything than the Lascannon while only getting 3" more range. But between the Lascannon and the Vanquisher I wouldn't say there is a clear winner. While the Lascannons are better against most targets, the Vanquisher gets 10" more range which is quite alot and is better against 2+ save vehicles so it does have its uses.

Its pretty much like that for most of the weapons. There might be a clear loser but the other weapons all have some situation they will be preferred in.

was more curious how people are actually building them, there are going to be "good" options and less good ones, some of which may themselves be "good" in some situations.

only reason I've not posted pics is the site I use for hosting seems to be one this forum doesn't like and while the images can be right clicked to view won't show in line

sad leopard

you will always have "whats the best build?", if everything is mono build it becomes "which is the best unit?"

doesn't help when the options are so very much not equal

I like a mix of a few heavy bolters, I think every unit wants some point defence. Also building with variation for now just to try it, theory hammer is not always perfect, depends on local groups

 Pacific wrote:

 westiebestie wrote:
First off, its pretty clear that not making weapon options cost points was bad in the sense that almost everyone is fishing for the "best" builds and all options are not equally strong. Which will make Battle Cannon and Predator Cannon way less popular than they were in the lore.

Yup, and this is why at least 50% of the new content/posts across social media for this game at the moment are "should I fit weapon X to X"-type posts. Rather than people showing their new minis or games, which is kind of sad. You just can't trust that the balance has been equitable, or even close to it, as GW has a poor track record in this area and you could make the miniature only to find you have effectively locked yourself in with a turnip.

Ah yes. That's why FB 5, 6, 7, 8 and 40k 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th were devoid of "should I fit weapon X or Y" posts...oh wait that was like 90% content anyway.

Comparison between different miniatures instead of loadouts is also bonkers: Why would anyone pick any of the interceptors over the Marauder bomber? The standard marauder is better than the fighters at everything, even intercepting!!

Same with the poor Malcador: why spend points on Malcadors compared to Baneblades? Also Malcadors are way worse than Kratos for even a bit more points...

see if this works

Lovely job Leopard! That's a really nice scheme, works really well.

Tneva82 - Sorry I was referring to previous versions of Epic and that community. Other games for the most part didn't have the granularity of different weapon loadouts so you just had a few choices and that was it. But I guess this is one of the things with the change in scale, you have less abstraction now with it being 8mm and the vehicles in particular being so much larger than the original game.

 Matrindur wrote:
For anyone interested I made a quick calculation sheet of the 6 currently available tanks against different targets:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hRkAM-fD9BahV3Lruv7CHhSE31Zd0j97V53xquYGkro/edit?usp=sharing

The background colours should help to differentiate between weapon options.

Thank you.

It seems most players discussing options only look at the weapon stats and not tactical options w PD.

LC are stronger against everything but Infantry. But, HBs have Point Defence, which gives you the ability to fire them in the Movement phase, before or after moving. And they can fire against a different target. And, they can fire Overwatch without the -2 to hit. So there's more to the HB than the weapon stats show.

The jury is still out on the PD usefulness but I for one think this is one of few possibilities of hunting down Infantry before they Garrison a structure for example. Advance order to shoot during MV if they are without transport, or call Overwatch when they leave their transport and dash for the structure, at normal 5+ To hit. I could also leave them near a structure and in the next game turn shoot their PD HBs before moving out of LOS and then targeting something else with their main weapons in the Combat phase.

Its going to be way more tricky to kill infantry once they get in said structure, with -2 to Hit, 4+ish cover saves & CAF bonuses.

to be honest a 4+ cover save, while obviously better than a 5+ or 6+ basic save, still isn't amazing and volume of fire will still cause some pain.

think its there that the HB wins out over the LC, yes its a 5+ to hit not a 4+, but its twice the dice

needs testing, I think weight of fire is going to matter, especially anything with "ignores cover"

the split fire ability is also useful, I suspect very useful

FYI, Bits&Kits have now started selling individual LI models.. no individual weapon bitz yet though which is a shame, I would have bought 2 Contemptor Lascannons imediately

I don't like any weapon with a 5+ to hit for this game.. you cannot get bucketfulls of dice as easily as in 40K, so with the relatively low dicepools in most firefights, I like to prefer at least 4+ to hit, especially since gaining negative tohit modifiers is quite common.. But I do like the fact that point defence weapons can be fired in the movement phase, this will be very useful in fact! When we get Javelins, this will be a great way to whittle advancing enemy assaulters before they have a chance to charge/react

But both 5+ and 4+ to hit become 6+ as soon as you have -2 or worse to hit, e.g. firing into Structures, Overwatch etc. In which case the Balance tips to twice as many shots being better in most cases even without PD.