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.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
I find that the Close Assault Doctrine Sanctioned is rather a waste. Their weapons are not assault, only the tempestor/commander have a close-combat weapon/pistol (with a 6 inch range), so you basically have crusader for a single model in the squad as the rest do nothing in the shooting phase, short of throwing a grenade (one of each) or use an assault weapon if you happen to have one (so either melta, GL or flamer) and even then, like IO said, the scions are not equipped for any type of assault role.

The Sergeants have CCWs/Pistols...and so do Commissars, who can be placed into a Scion unit.

So all that jazz to have 2 melee equipped model (with the Commissar being WS4, the sarge, WS3) have a better chance to get in a melee while the 4 other scions are just meat shields?
I still find that doctrine a waste. Add a hot shot laspistol and a CCW to each of them, and now you're talking, right now that seems to be waste of doctrine and I would personally just stand my ground and fire away, let them charge me and try to deal with my overwatch

Crusader also has the 2d6 run pick highest, technically better then fleet.

I would say they are both situational, if you KNOW yiuare going to win combat then crusader is nice to have.

Neither are great, but both are nice in their own way.

 sfshilo wrote:

Inquisitor Jex wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Inquisitor Jex wrote:
I find that the Close Assault Doctrine Sanctioned is rather a waste. Their weapons are not assault, only the tempestor/commander have a close-combat weapon/pistol (with a 6 inch range), so you basically have crusader for a single model in the squad as the rest do nothing in the shooting phase, short of throwing a grenade (one of each) or use an assault weapon if you happen to have one (so either melta, GL or flamer) and even then, like IO said, the scions are not equipped for any type of assault role.

The Sergeants have CCWs/Pistols...and so do Commissars, who can be placed into a Scion unit.

So all that jazz to have 2 melee equipped model (with the Commissar being WS4, the sarge, WS3) have a better chance to get in a melee while the 4 other scions are just meat shields?
I still find that doctrine a waste. Add a hot shot laspistol and a CCW to each of them, and now you're talking, right now that seems to be waste of doctrine and I would personally just stand my ground and fire away, let them charge me and try to deal with my overwatch

Crusader also has the 2d6 run pick highest, technically better then fleet.

I would say they are both situational, if you KNOW yiuare going to win combat then crusader is nice to have.

Neither are great, but both are nice in their own way.

Crusader has a defensive role as well. The bonus to the sweeping advance roll means your unit is less likely to be swept when they lose combat and flee. With that extra d3 they can still escape from initiative 10 enemies and more likely to escape Space Marines than they are to be caught.

I don't mean to necro the thread, but... how is 7th edition looking for the Scions?

The new force org charts make a lot more sense, they are looking like a decent allied detachment just because they bring a lot of specialized firepower while also being extreamely mobile

I think one of the formations is going to be the way to go personally, but its tough when you can just take the formation from AM.

They fixed our broken Warlord trait in the FAQ.
They clarified our hot-shot volley guns don't get hot.

You can take MT as a second detachment with AM and they get objective secured along with their Taurox Primes and better orders.

There is no reason to take MT as elites in the AM codex at all unless you really want to use them with AM orders.

Well, in my case, though I hate unbound with a passion, it makes my desired build possible regardless of FW (2x command squads, 6x infantry squads, 3x avenger strike fighters, season with upgrades to taste).

Have any pure MT players had a chance to use their primes yet? It seems the cannon is the way to go, as the missile launcher at 20 points is pretty expensive (for two more points you get a melta scion). But it seems the autocanon is a bit of a waste range-wise. The prime seems to be up-close and on the move and autocannons seem more back-field.

I guess you can glance some walkers or low AVs, but I see the prime being more close infantry support (Which adds to its survivability IMO - does your opponent shoot the scions or the prime? )