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.

They're talking practically, not literally. I think I've had a manticore survive to launch all four rockets like... once?

The basilisk's "minimum range" has been all but completely written out of the rulebook. Don't worry about it.

As for the two tanks, it depends on what you want them for. They serve different purposes. Generally, you're probably going to want the demolisher, as it can handle a wider range of targets for cheaper, but there are still reasons to take the other if you have a need for it.

 Ailaros wrote:
They're talking practically, not literally. I think I've had a manticore survive to launch all four rockets like... once?

The basilisk's "minimum range" has been all but completely written out of the rulebook. Don't worry about it.

As for the two tanks, it depends on what you want them for. They serve different purposes. Generally, you're probably going to want the demolisher, as it can handle a wider range of targets for cheaper, but there are still reasons to take the other if you have a need for it.

Sounds fair. That basically removes my issue with the Basilisk. The demolisher's heavy cannon looks really nice (I'm not used to using lots of large blast templates), though maybe it'd be better as a defensive weapon (take down their heavy assault units as they make their advance). By using the Basilisk to hit them hard from afar, and the Demolisher as they get close, I get overlapping danger zones (heh) and a tool for their own jobs.

Despite the manticore only being able to shoot four rockets, it always seems to kill its worth in points. As a plus, it also draws a lot of fire away from other units. Depending on how you judge a unit's worth, the manticore is almost always a solid choice.

Is there any credence to the idea of taking say 2x Basilisks and a Gryphon, using the Gryphon's shot to re-roll the to-hit and basically target painting for the Basilisks?

S6 AP4 isn't bad against most things anyways, and it's cheap to boot.

 Elector wrote:

I base my knowledge off the codex saying it has Limited Ammunition. It only has 4 rockets and after all have been fired it cannot fire again. It's actually very explicitly stated in the codex, unless it's been FAQ'd out (which I doubt)

My bad, I had a brain fart and for some reason thought people were talking about the Manticore rockets being 4 separate weapon systems again. Yes, it does indeed have only 4 shots, but you probably won't need more than that. I've seen a lot of manticores played, and this has never been an issue. By that time, the game is decided one way or the other, or the manticore is dead.

I would say Basilisk is a fair choice now. Especially when someones meta game is changing to foot marines

The problem is, Leman Russ is a great heavy support choice. Better than any artylery piece IG has.

 More Dakka wrote:
Is there any credence to the idea of taking say 2x Basilisks and a Gryphon, using the Gryphon's shot to re-roll the to-hit and basically target painting for the Basilisks?

S6 AP4 isn't bad against most things anyways, and it's cheap to boot.

To quote me from the previous page in this very thread:

It is still not a good idea to mix artillery.
What happens when your target lies out of 48” or under 12”? What happens when your Griffon lands smack in the middle of a unit, then both Basilisks roll arrows? Wound allocation is less of a problem now for mixed artillery units but your two Basilisks will cost 22% more than someone who isn’t using a spotting Griffon.

Sorry, this is a bit off-topic.

But, can any of you guys tell me where the hell the vehicle squadron rules are in the codex? Page number, specifically.

I've read them before, when I first got the codex. I can't find where the rules are located for the life of me.

They're not in the codex. They're in the main rulebook. Page 77.

Has anyone tried out the new rules for the forgeworld earthshaker/medusa battery? Seems like they're much more useful than Basilisks or any of the other self-propelled guns.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf

T7, 4W, and 3+ save makes them practically monstrous creatures in terms of durability, and at 75 points, you can get two of them for almost the cost of one basilisk.

If your FLG is open to forgeworld rules, these seem like the go-to artillery pieces.

They're devestating. Honestly if they were in the GW IG codex I'd have 9 in every list.

 McGibs wrote:
Has anyone tried out the new rules for the forgeworld earthshaker/medusa battery? Seems like they're much more useful than Basilisks or any of the other self-propelled guns.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf

T7, 4W, and 3+ save makes them practically monstrous creatures in terms of durability, and at 75 points, you can get two of them for almost the cost of one basilisk.

If your FLG is open to forgeworld rules, these seem like the go-to artillery pieces.

Definitely! The batteries are far superior and also dirt cheap in points.

Yes, but to be fair, EVERYTHING DKoK is much better than its codex counterpart. If you're an ultracompetitive guard player, you should probably just play DKoK rather than regular guard.

 Omegus wrote:

 Elector wrote:

I base my knowledge off the codex saying it has Limited Ammunition. It only has 4 rockets and after all have been fired it cannot fire again. It's actually very explicitly stated in the codex, unless it's been FAQ'd out (which I doubt)

My bad, I had a brain fart and for some reason thought people were talking about the Manticore rockets being 4 separate weapon systems again.

I was going "do whot?" until I read that. Ahhh yes that old gem.

 Lothar wrote:
I would say Basilisk is a fair choice now. Especially when someones meta game is changing to foot marines

Yes, because in 5th when your mech'd rhino blew up you weren't forced to deploy in perfect pieplate for your AP3 S9 artillery piece.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yes, but to be fair, EVERYTHING DKoK is much better than its codex counterpart. If you're an ultracompetitive guard player, you should probably just play DKoK rather than regular guard.

Not really. They can't mech spam because they have terrible transports, and their veterans are sucky and expensive.

Blob guard used to be awesome in 5th, but now they have the same problem as normal guard - vulnerable commissars and lack of cover. I'd say if anything they were slightly worse than vanilla guard now.

Aren't they all Stubborn, WS4, option for power fists on sergeants, and can take platoon standards? There's the option for laspistols, too, I guess. At 1 point per model, this is totally worth it, and it let's them function like the power blobs of old, except even better, especially when you consider FNP from the Quartermaster.

They also get great artillery choices (in elites and heavy support) and thunderer siege tanks.

On the other hand, they have no psykers, chimeras, or vendettas, and they pay a premium on all of their command squads and heavy weapon teams which don't really need the melee buffs. They also have no veterans except for even more terrible versions of Stormtroopers.

So they are great if you play them like DKoK: waves of guys and big guns. If you want to do mechanized or airborne, you're out of luck.

Really, a power gamer would probably take IG as a parent list for veterans and vendettas, and reach for DKoK as allies.

HQ: Quartermaster
Elites: quad guns or bombards
Troops: each PCS lets you field up to 6 infantry squads for 2 30-man blobs
Fast Attack: cyclops demo vehicles
Heavy Support: your cup runeth over

I think that can also combine HWS into regular infantry squads, making them tougher.

DKOK has limited mechanized stuff, and limited special weapon carriers (ccs and pcs can only take 1 special, no veterans), so you sorta have to play them heavy foot, with artillery support (duh).

The Eathshaker battery I posted isnt DKOK specific, IG can take it as heavy support. I just put it up here as this is an artillery discussion, and it looks like a pretty damn good piece of artillery..

 McGibs wrote:
Has anyone tried out the new rules for the forgeworld earthshaker/medusa battery? Seems like they're much more useful than Basilisks or any of the other self-propelled guns.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf

T7, 4W, and 3+ save makes them practically monstrous creatures in terms of durability, and at 75 points, you can get two of them for almost the cost of one basilisk.

If your FLG is open to forgeworld rules, these seem like the go-to artillery pieces.

+4 more wounds at t7 v shooting for the 4 crew, and 4 more crew can be added. The thing can take 10 unsaved wounds and still fire. Plus the crew are probably going to be behind an aegis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So yea umm 36 wounds at t7 for 297 points with 3 earthshaker cannons. Plus because the crew are not vehicles I think they can recieve orders to tl the guns and/or force rerolls of successful cover saves. That's why TO don't usually allow forge world.

Hm, the orders thing is interesting. Although technically, the IG FAQ states that IG orders can only be issued to units from the IG: Codex. So, there's that (though that would make all Dkok and Elysian orders non-usable, as none of those units are from the IG codex).

The wound stacking is very true, but remember that they are very susceptible to routing. They still need to take checks, and at Ld7, all those guns will get destroyed if they fail.
Problem solved by putting an IC, banner, or Commissar Lord in/near them though.

Well their most obvious drawback is melee. That's a whole lot of dakka that can be taken out by an assaulting tactical squad

 schadenfreude wrote:
That's why TO don't usually allow forge world.

Actually, TOs don't usually allow Forge World because they frequently only have third-hand rumors of what the rules for a unit are, and how game-breakingly powerful it is. Which is once again true here, since you've overlooked the massive drawback to the big guns: they can't move. Ever. And this includes pivoting on the spot*.

So, what actually happens with heavy artillery is that they get one good shot (zero, if your opponent deploys second and chooses to avoid it), and then all of the good targets are out of the narrow arc your gun can shoot in. They're good for using as an area denial weapon or putting a specific target under siege (an objective, your opponent's gunline, etc), but you get that discount in points for a very good reason.



*Ok, technically the rules for this are broken right now and, as non-vehicle models, your guns can shoot in a 360* arc, but that's violating the clear intent of the rules.

 Testify wrote:
Well their most obvious drawback is melee. That's a whole lot of dakka that can be taken out by an assaulting tactical squad

To be fair, they last just as long in melee as a self-propelled gun would. But I guess that can at least attempt to drive away.

^ I dont see how pivoting is "clear violation of the intended rules". Field artillery can pivot. You dont need a truck to turn the gun 180 degrees, just a bunch of guys.
Also, they can move. That's what trojans are for.

 McGibs wrote:
I dont see how pivoting is "clear violation of the intended rules". Field artillery can pivot. You dont need a truck to turn the gun 180 degrees, just a bunch of guys.

Because the original rules for the unit explicitly stated that it can not pivot (unlike smaller guns), and nothing in the new rules suggests that this has been deliberately changed. The only problem is that the guns are no longer vehicles, so their facing doesn't matter RAW. Since this goes against the intent of the unit, it will probably eventually be FAQed back to how they used to work.

(Fluff-wise the models are way too big to be moved by hand in any reasonable amount of time, and have no easy way of turning.)

Also, they can move. That's what trojans are for.

Read the Trojan rules. To load or unload the guns you need to spend a full turn without moving or shooting. So a turn to load and a turn to unload just to pivot them, and add another turn if you want to move them (assuming you're moving them a short enough distance). Spending 2-3 turns (and the cost of a Trojan) without firing to move your guns is so stupid that the option might as well not exist at all.

Uh, a tactical squad will obliterate any rear AV10 vehicle in assault.

A 45 arc covers most of the board when deployed in a corner, 2 units can cover both corners, but the best part is raw they are 360.

Morale tests? Sure they have to take one if they take 7 out of 27 as casualties after being wounded at t7 and failing their 4+ cover save. The squad size is 3 guns and 24 guardsmen, that's 27 models.

Sure a tactical squad can kill them in cc. How many 8/3 pies does it take to kill a tactical squad. With unlimited range they can be in the back end of a deployment zone meaning whatever wants to assault them has to go through everytging else 1st.

Maybe 6 of these bad boys in 2 squads of 3 with a rune priest or primaris attached to each squad swapping powers out for divination to twin link the shots. Or 3 squads of 2 without an ic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
2 more thoughts.

Just how well would tac marines do against 24 Dkok guardsmen?

Would a rune priest with counter attack give the 8 guardsmen per gun counter attack?