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.

No.

If a hive tyrant is only four wounds....

No.

Honestly the Palanquin isn't really worth it. But juggernauts? Depends. Just a Chaos Lord writing a juggerlord isn't really worth giving much regard. But a Juggerlord wielding an axe of blind fury? Now that thing is a beast. Sure it has a chance of wounding itself on a roll of a 1 and then getting a WS and BS of 1 for the turn (its happened to me 3 times before) but its worth the risk! I'd argue you haver to worry about Daemon Princes, Lords of Change, and probably the Bloodthirster and Keeper of Secrets. As you mentioned though, the juggerlord is a nasty unit that tears enemies apart.

The thing is, Goliath did mentioned that the juggernaut is great, on certain types of lords. It's not really worth it all that much unless you give it the axe of blind fury. What? You already markedh im khorne and shoved him on a juggernaut, it would be heresy to not give him an axe that makes him swing like a raving madman

yea SM chapter masters didn't need a 4th W, that is as many as a Hive tyrant and you have way better protection, he is lucky if he gets a 2+ armour for a round of CC, let alone having a 2+/3+ all the time and T6 don't help as much as you would think. So be happy with what you have.

 Jayden63 wrote:
You need to remember the number one rule for winning the game. Play the mission. In a game where 9 out of 10 missions are objective missions, how is it ever a bad thing to be able to go from 4-6 scoring unit to 8 - 12.

If I had this ability, you would bet I'd stack the odds in my favor for each and every objective I got to place on my side of the field. I can now sit two to four units with long range weapons where we can support each other if the enemy gets close.

Also Id rather have two units of 5 with one special weapon apiece instead of one unit of 10 with two special weapons. You limit the amount of damage a single bad die roll or overwhelming firepower can inflict.

But its to each their own. List building has a lot to do with playstyle as much as raw force. What works for one person may not work for another simply because they don't have the same agressive nature or willing to take the same chances.

I'm not really sure where you play where 5 model units aren't destroyed outright by fire, but to each it's own I suppose.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
You need to remember the number one rule for winning the game. Play the mission. In a game where 9 out of 10 missions are objective missions, how is it ever a bad thing to be able to go from 4-6 scoring unit to 8 - 12.

If I had this ability, you would bet I'd stack the odds in my favor for each and every objective I got to place on my side of the field. I can now sit two to four units with long range weapons where we can support each other if the enemy gets close.

Also Id rather have two units of 5 with one special weapon apiece instead of one unit of 10 with two special weapons. You limit the amount of damage a single bad die roll or overwhelming firepower can inflict.

But its to each their own. List building has a lot to do with playstyle as much as raw force. What works for one person may not work for another simply because they don't have the same agressive nature or willing to take the same chances.

I'm not really sure where you play where 5 model units aren't destroyed outright by fire, but to each it's own I suppose.

I think it is "Each Meta to it's Own.".

I sure would love to have a 20 point model with 2W, Eternal Warrior, reroll hits on MCs, WS5, FEEL NO PAIN (Yes, it exists in the SW codex) and doesn't confer VPs when dead in MY codex.

Oh wait, but I have 18 point Chosen! Oh....

herpguy wrote:
I sure would love to have a 20 point model with 2W, Eternal Warrior, reroll hits on MCs, WS5, FEEL NO PAIN (Yes, it exists in the SW codex) and doesn't confer VPs when dead in MY codex.

Oh wait, but I have 18 point Chosen! Oh....

Yes and they can't lead units, be joined by Characters and has to run across the table.
If they don't die they give up a VP, I actualy lost a game this way.

 SRSFACE wrote:

GoliothOnline wrote:
The cost of taking a Jugernaught, or Palaquin just to give him extra wounds and Toughness isn't worth what comes with the package... Taking the Palaquin, doesn't increase your Toughness for instance... It just gives you Wounds... Taking the Juggernaught, gives you +1 Attack / Toughenss and Wounds... Arguable the best in the package... But on the wrong type of Lord... Terribly packaged... The Palaquin, a Nurgle "Steed" doesn't increase your Toughness Value at all.... By all logic It shouldn't give you +2 Wounds and +1 Attack... It should be +1 Toughness and +2 Wounds...

The Dex was ill thought out and terrible... Taking a Nurgle Lord just to unlock Plague Marines, costs you his point cost divided into the number of Plague Marines you decide to take.... Does that seem right to you? He doesn't get the privilege of ever taking a piece of Wargear which bestows EW... The best he can hope for is T6 so that str 10 weapons cannot ID him.... Like.... A Power Fist.... Chaos Lords got such a disgustingly raw deal in terms of both usefulness and actual purpose for the Dex...

I am going to have to disagree with you, like, a lot.

And also you're watering down your own arguments with excessive and incorrect uses of ellipses. Just use one period! Trust me, it makes words much more powerful.

Chaos Lords can totally wreck things. You just have to pay around 150 points. Cosindering they will be your warlord most the time, it's just the way of things this edition. Either go with a really cheap HQ unit who's barebones just to be your warlord and then hide him all game, or make him cost the equivalent of 10 chaos marines and watch him become a wrecking ball who'll hopefully kill more than 10 marines ever could.

The Nurgle "steed" isn't a steed really. It's basically tons of extra wounds. You're still t5 because of the Mark of Nurgle so it's not like you have to sweat instant death all that much, and 5 wounds is a ton for a warlord unit. Still, I feel like a Chaos Lord of Nurgle is best on a bike for that T6. I feel like the Palanquin is more for Nurgle Sorcerers. 4 wounds on a sorcerer is awesome.

Have you ever faced a Juggernaut Khorne Lord wielding the Axe of Blind Fury? Dude gets like 9-14 attacks on the charge, all made at S6 AP2 I5. I don't believe there's a way in the game to have that many attacks made at that strength and AP in close combat in the game outside of monstrous creatures, which are actually significantly more expensive than the Juggerlord would be. Again, T5 so you only have to worry about S10 weaponry and MCs. Actually, with MCs, you still only really have to worry about other chaos players and their Daemon Princes as he'll kill any Tau MC and most Tyranid MCs before they get to strike, barring some totally abyssmal luck. Obviously that's a risky proposition, but it's worth noting.

Have you seen what 1 Vindicator does? I sure as hell have.

I have a good amount of games under my belt to know what I'm talking about with the poor, poor CSM Dex. Chaos Lords are garbage. The Juggernaught Lord is ONLY ever used in collaboration with Spawn to soak up wounds to get him into CC. Competitively he doesn't perform well and is a point sink. Lets also not forget that a roll of 1 is a lot more common over the course of a years worth of games where your Lord can be a meatbag for an entire round of combat.

The topic was about the Palaquin and how it doesn't offer T6. It instead gives you Wounds. Which It shouldn't, it shouldn't even give you the +1 Attack neither. Converting the +1 Attack to +1 Toughness would have made it actually used. Instead they botched it.

I played CSM competitively for a good deal of time and tried dozens of builds with my Lords. They aren't competitive. A Daemon Prince will always be more valuable points wise and will always out perform the Chaos Lord, no matter his build. And again, taking a lord means you have to devide his point value into the Elites you are taking as troops. If you don't make ample use of those said Elite-Converts you might as well not take them at all. I have had MUCH better results simply taking Cultists as troops and Plague Marines as Elites for instance. The 65+15+X+X in points you would need to invest in a Chaos Lord of Nurgle would never be worth it.

While you've brought up the subject on Juggerlords though, try bringing Kharn instead. I've played Chaos vs Chaos and watched Kharn tear through a Juggerlord like he was paper on all accounts. The Lord doesn't have what it takes for his inevitable value.

On a completely off track note, I've also seen what happens when you try to throw a Juggerlord at something that should be easy to destroy, like a Riptide. Roll something terrible, weather it be not enough hits / wounds, or a simple 1 on your trusty Daemon Weapon and you're dead. Splat. You just got pancaked by a Riptide. He is only ever Str 6 anyways, the only way you can reliably increase his Strength is to put him with CSMs who have the Icon of Wrath for Furious Charge. (And why the hell does the Axe of Blind Fury give you Rage anyways?... ONLY Mark of Khorne appropriate models can take it, and the Mark of Khorne already gives you Rage. The dex was thought out for specifically Daemon Princes.)

 StarTrotter wrote:
Honestly the Palanquin isn't really worth it. But juggernauts? Depends. Just a Chaos Lord writing a juggerlord isn't really worth giving much regard. But a Juggerlord wielding an axe of blind fury? Now that thing is a beast. Sure it has a chance of wounding itself on a roll of a 1 and then getting a WS and BS of 1 for the turn (its happened to me 3 times before) but its worth the risk! I'd argue you haver to worry about Daemon Princes, Lords of Change, and probably the Bloodthirster and Keeper of Secrets. As you mentioned though, the juggerlord is a nasty unit that tears enemies apart.

The thing is, Goliath did mentioned that the juggernaut is great, on certain types of lords. It's not really worth it all that much unless you give it the axe of blind fury. What? You already markedh im khorne and shoved him on a juggernaut, it would be heresy to not give him an axe that makes him swing like a raving madman

I agree the Palanquin is kind of the odd man out in the God steeds compared to just a bike, as the other 3 are all awesome (outflank + acute senses = bueno, +1 attack rather than a TL boltgun and an additional would with the Juggernaut, extreme mobility through the jetbike Disc of Tzeentch and it's still +1T) but it has it's place, especially if you run Black Legion supplement. A Palanquin Sorcerer with the Skull of Kergnal or whatever it's called that grants EW and AW is nasty. Really difficult to take out, especially if he manages to roll any of the sillier powers on the Biomancy table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GoliothOnline wrote:

Have you seen what 1 Vindicator does? I sure as hell have.

Your guy that has 12" move is having issues with Vindicators? Sounds like the rest of the army needs to be tweaked if that's the case.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jayden63 wrote:
You need to remember the number one rule for winning the game. Play the mission. In a game where 9 out of 10 missions are objective missions, how is it ever a bad thing to be able to go from 4-6 scoring unit to 8 - 12.

If I had this ability, you would bet I'd stack the odds in my favor for each and every objective I got to place on my side of the field. I can now sit two to four units with long range weapons where we can support each other if the enemy gets close.

Also Id rather have two units of 5 with one special weapon apiece instead of one unit of 10 with two special weapons. You limit the amount of damage a single bad die roll or overwhelming firepower can inflict.

But its to each their own. List building has a lot to do with playstyle as much as raw force. What works for one person may not work for another simply because they don't have the same agressive nature or willing to take the same chances.

I'm not really sure where you play where 5 model units aren't destroyed outright by fire, but to each it's own I suppose.

Five models are killed out right. No LD check for the other 5, and if they do six unsaved wounds, its still only five guys. If the enemy charges them, only five guys will get wiped out, not ten. Or better yet, if they do charge ten guys thats a multicharge, thus their charge bonues go away.

Its the foundation of MSU. Its not 5 guys. If 4 groups of 5 guys working close together. But yeah, to each meta to its own.

So I'm going to start this post with some general tactical thoughts concerning scoring.

It's actually 5 out of 6 missions are objective missions, assuming we're talking about just the BRB stuff here. 83.33%~ is not 90%. They're close, I know, but I'm nitpicky. And then 2/5 of the objective missions give scoring to other choices. So, really, only 50% of missions are troop-dependent when it comes to primary objectives. Then there are secondary objectives, none of which are troop dependent (personally I really, really hate these). So the 50% that require troops are:

-The Emperor's Will: Each player gets an objective.
-The Relic: One portable objective.
-Crusade: D3+2 objectives.

Troops *usually* bring more 'scoring power' than they do killing power, and then the other slots are where you go for killing power, (this is especially true of Tactical Squads, in my experience) among other types of 'powers' which I won't go into at this moment. Unfortunately, it's fairly easy to control missions like Emperor's Will or The Relic using units' killing power to keep enemies off the objectives (and my experience is that an army winning via killing power tends to easily get Linebreaker by the end, too). When there are only two objectives you only need to have one to win--the enemy just has to be off theirs. With only one objective the side who kills everything that gets close to the relic for 4 turns can swoop in and get it before the game ends, or just dismantle the enemy army and go for secondaries.

Really, I'm only concerned about having ample troops when there are d3+2 objectives and no other scoring slots (so, 1 out of every 6 games, or roughly 16.67% of them). Even then using killing power over scoring power is still a very viable approach to winning these games. The top dogs (Tau and Eldar in particular, but also the likes of Helldrake-heavy lists) do very well because they have extraordinary killing power that can nuke scoring units off objectives pretty much wherever they please (admittedly Eldar get a ton of their killing power from Wave Serpents which are taking with units that provide scoring, so they don't even have much of a trade off in this regard).

--
Now on to the Space Wolf-specific stuff. Grey Hunters and Tactical Marines are designed for very different roles. Tactical Marines bring equipment versatility and flexible scoring power (the option to split into Combat Squads is a big part of this), whereas Grey Hunters bring pure mid-short range killing power. Acute Senses is garbage on Grey Hunters right now, but Counter-Attack is still fairly worthwhile when you're rapid-firing enemies in the face--when you're winning a shooting match a lot of times an opponent will try to charge (even if it's not necessarily with a CC specialist) just to keep the guns silent, and Counter Attack helps dissuade the opponent from doing that or can get you out of an assault quicker. Other Chapter Tactics are better, I will agree there, but I still don't think that Tactical Marines doing their job are anywhere near as good as Grey Hunters doing theirs.

A full Grey Hunter squad has available to it up to 2 Special Weapons (which are 5pts cheaper than their C:SM equivalents), a Plasma Pistol, a Power Weapon/Fist that can't be challenged, a Wulfen, and Wolf Standard and can take a rhino or drop pod. A full tactical squad can buy a veteran sergeant (Ld9), and any two of: a combi-weapon, plasma/grav pistol, or Power Weapon/Fist. Then they can buy 1 special and 1 heavy weapon and a rhino/razorback (using Combat Squads to make use of it)/drop pod.

The Grey Hunters just seem like a much better deal. Marine armies are plagued by generalists in an environment where non-MEQ armies dominate using efficiently specialised killing power. Grey Hunters are more specialised than Tactical Squads, and this makes them more-efficient when doing their job. While I think that Tactical Marines ought to be re-balanced in a way that lets them stand up to specialised troops and still do their flexible-generalist job, as a Space Wolf player I do not at all think that Grey Hunters should get the tools to do that job as well (and vice versa). Grey Hunters should never have Combat Squads nor should they ever have Heavy Weapons. More should be done to distinguish the 'basic marines' of each MEQ book from each other. DA should have had something different than just the Tactical Squad, and SW need to stay different. The core unit(s) of a non-codex MEQ army need to be very different in function from the Tactical Squad, otherwise those armies are really more deserving of the Templar treatment or getting shovelled into a supplement.

This coming from a DA and SW player (and GK, and C:SM).

Really, all we need is in-codex Skyfire/Fliers to tackle that aspect of 6th without resorting to out-of-codex support. Other than that SW is still a damn good army.