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.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I don't have the book yet. Can someone look into the deep striking of skimmers. Do Monoliths have deep strike protection in 7th?

No rule allowing deep striking skimmers in the rule book. Monoliths still the same re DS mishaps.

Can't find any rule that gives destroyers jink.

MarkCron wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I don't have the book yet. Can someone look into the deep striking of skimmers. Do Monoliths have deep strike protection in 7th?

No rule allowing deep striking skimmers in the rule book. Monoliths still the same re DS mishaps.

Can't find any rule that gives destroyers jink.

They haven't Jink. Some people still think they are Troop Type: Jetbikes because they used to be and nobody used them in 6th anyway. They are Jump Infantry, though, and therefore can't Jink.

Long story short: they're still bad.

So apparently RAW, the CCB/Overlord counts as a single model.

The CCB can have the phase shifter 3++ if the Overlord buys it.

The CCB can join units. Barge-Star!

And the CCB can do funky things like still do its sweep attack while staying attached to a unit (just has to start and end its movement in coherency with its unit if it wants to stay attached)

Now that...would be interesting...

As exciting as that seems, I doubt you'd be able to convince anyone to let you do that. Even if it counts as a single model, is it still technically and independent character?

Interesting, I wonder what the overlord/CCB unit type is. I suspect that it would be type chariot (character), which would mean the overlord loses IC status.

Actually, it has to be type chariot, because the rider is not separable from the chariot and the rules for the rider are specified under the Chariot rules.

Good idea though.

MarkCron wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I don't have the book yet. Can someone look into the deep striking of skimmers. Do Monoliths have deep strike protection in 7th?

No rule allowing deep striking skimmers in the rule book. Monoliths still the same re DS mishaps.

Can't find any rule that gives destroyers jink.

Thanks for the reply. People were using the "skimmers cannot be forced to end movement in impassable terrain" to mean that the Monoliths that land in impassable terrain (including on enemy models) would reduce their scatter to the point where they are safe from mishap. I should have specified what I was asking before. Is the rule about skimmers and impassable terrain still in the brb?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkCron wrote:
Interesting, I wonder what the overlord/CCB unit type is. I suspect that it would be type chariot (character), which would mean the overlord loses IC status.

Actually, it has to be type chariot, because the rider is not separable from the chariot and the rules for the rider are specified under the Chariot rules.

Good idea though.

The FAQ lists the CCB as a vehicle (Chariot, Skimmer, Fast, and Open-Topped). So it doesn't seem to count as a character or independent character. It can still probably be our warlord... the precedent was set in AM for vehicle Warlords.

Yes, it is.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu-adom wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkCron wrote:
Interesting, I wonder what the overlord/CCB unit type is. I suspect that it would be type chariot (character), which would mean the overlord loses IC status.

Actually, it has to be type chariot, because the rider is not separable from the chariot and the rules for the rider are specified under the Chariot rules.

Good idea though.

The FAQ lists the CCB as a vehicle (Chariot, Skimmer, Fast, and Open-Topped). So it doesn't seem to count as a character or independent character. It can still probably be our warlord... the precedent was set in AM for vehicle Warlords.

It can't be the warlord if there are any other characters in the army. You have to select a character first.

RAW -

The CCB is an unusual unit with a dual profile.

It counts as a single model.

On the Overlord profile is the special rule that it is an independent character.

So according to the dual profile, the Independent Character special rule is in effect.

There is nothing in the rules taking away special rules on the Overlord side of the dual profile.

In fact, reanimation protocol special rule is quite clearly still in effect.

There would have to be a line that says the Rider of a Chariot loses any Independent Character special rule.

IIt's basically an unusual unit with a dual profile that counts as a single model - as stated in RAW.

Keep in mind that this isn't super crazy. Other IC can't join any unit that has a CCB in it since they can't join vehicles and the CCB is clearly a vehicle. So at best you have a CCB joined to a unit of wraiths.

Are we seeing the death of the Destroyer Lord and the birth of the CCB Overlord?

Over Lord is 215 points (CCB, WS, MSS, Res Orb)
Destroyer Lord is 190 points (Semp Weave, MSS, Res Orb)

Positives - Survivability
1. v Shooting the OL (generally) can not be hurt by S6 and below
2. "Free" 4++ against high strength shooting attacks and the option of putting the high strength non AP2 attacks on the lords 2+ save

- Damage
1. Sweep attack
2. D6 S6 HOW attacks on the charge
3. Shooting attack

Negatives
1. 25 more points
2. Loose PE

Any I missed?

I can confirm that Kutlakh on the CCB is awesomeness incarnate.

He basically decapitated the Swarmlord and a full unit of LW and BS Tyrant guard without any real threat to himself after he ganked the Swarmlord.

He then went on a long rampage throughout the Tyranid army, with the Tyranid LOWs in the apoc game being kept down by the T C'tan and Superheavy Pylons while Carnifexes were kept well away.

Also managed a repeat against a melee focused Daemon list.

The Bloodthirster and Keeper of Secret's decapitated heads should go well on the pimp chair.

I can confirm that a SurfLord, even when played awesomely badly, is awesome.

I completely stuffed up the wound allocation and yet the Surflord lived and promptly went on a rampage through a CSM list.

Kirbs over at 3++ feels that 7th edition will encourage a slight meta shift back to MSU, with many transports and small infantry squads to take advantage of the new vehicle rules and the new scoring troop transport rules. I think that shift would be pretty good for the crons. Nothing strips HP like Tesla D's and Gauss.

Along those lines, I can finally legally run a list I've been playing around with in my head for years. Not sure how the various tournaments will rule on the wide open availability out there, but this is something that can be run with basic standard force org + allies. The two questions are whether or not RC members will be able to join units from allies/etc., and whether or not Anrakyr or Szeras's abilities can cross ally formations.

Hi Shadar,

That list looks neat. Just for clarity, you can't take the allied FOC Detachment, so you are going to have to take another troop to make your list battleforged.

You have to take 2 combined arms detachments (so you need 2 HQ and 4 troops min (unless Imo makes FO troops?)).

Kirby is absolutely right, and way more so than the interweb realises.

In 7th ed, Maelstrom missions are completely different to the way we played before. Instead of playing 1 game of 5 turns, we are playing 5 1 turn games consecutively. In each turn you need to get to the specific objective with a troop (or clear it so you can score with non troop). Then, it is most likely that you'll need to move to a different objective and do the same thing. Thing is you only have to "hold" the objective at the end of your player turn that you have the card. It is obviously desirable to leave troops there so your opponent has to work hard to get their VP, but you can't compromise your "deployment" for the "next game" ie your next turn.

I think it will be hugely difficult to win a maelstrom game by "killing troops". You'd have to kill them all in one turn and we don't have the firepower or alpha strike to do that.

So, our advantages are:

a) Tough superscoring vehicles
b) Night scythes for movement
c) Z's ability to bring in reinforcements in the opposing player turn - because you can stop them scoring (think NS moving up to 30" then dumping superscoring warriors - no VP for them!)
d) Crypteks - everliving crypteks in a 5 man squad give us a 33% chance of denying (or retaining) a VP, because they come back from the dead. And if there is even 1 warrior/cryptek within 3" of an objective - well, you either scored it or you denied it.
e) we can glance and wreck anything - which is going to be really important, because it isn't going to be long before EVERY imperial army is leaving superscoring drop pods on top of objectives which we'll have to wreck.
f) Deathmarks will also be critical, because not only can you use them to take out the psykers, you can also bring them in the opponent turn to contest objectives not held by superscoring troops -and again deny the VP.

So the fundamental way we design lists need to change. It isn't take and hold...it is take and GO.

Our main disadvantage is that other than NS we don't have supermobile scoring units, like turbo boosting bikes. Other than that, we have all the tools we need in spades.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The implication is that min units are the way to go.

I think your list would be great for most Eternal War missions, but not for Maelstrom.

For Maelstrom, I'd cut down each NS unit to only 5 and leave the other 5 walking on the board (with a cryptek) even if I had to drop an AB to do it. (Never thought I'd write that!)

That list looks neat. Just for clarity, you can't take the allied FOC Detachment, so you are going to have to take another troop to make your list battleforged.

Oh Really? So you can't take the old fashion 1 HQ 1 Troop + 1/0 of anything else anymore?

Not a big deal, though. Adding in 65 points of warriors somewhere would be useful, and wouldn't be to hard.

Yeah, honestly, the more I think about it, the more I dig it. Interesting combination of MSU and a couple of pretty salty Res Orbed/Olorded up Immortal sqauds. Plus a healthy plethora of Tesla D's. I think I've made my first 7th edition list.

If I need a 4th troop, I'll just drop the third NS immortal squad down to a couple Warriors with Lanctek squads I think. Maybe one Solar Pulse just to make sure things stay nice and dark one turn longer after Imo's lighting shuts off. I dig it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and of course this is a pretty solid template for anything:

Primary 1:

HQ
BargeLord

Troops
GA+5
GA+5

HS
AB
AB
AB

Primary 2:

HQ
BargeLord

Troops
GA+5
GA+5

HS
AB
AB
AB

That's 1620 and already has 12 AV 13 Hulls. Just nasty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets see, an extra barge lords and 3 Pulseteks runs you 345. That buys you another AV 13 hull and three turns of Stealth (NF dependent stealth). Throw in a basic Lanctek in the last GA and you are sitting pretty at 2k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and for those of you following along at home, it takes 27 BS 4 S 7 shots just to knock off one Stealthed/Jinked AV 13 HP. On this list you would just have to do that 39 times. Good luck with that.

Yep, that's a solid base!!

Why do I get the feeling that Crons are going to be hated in 7th?

And if you like your Barge Lords on the heftier side:

Primary 1:
HQ
305 Barge Lord w/SW/PS/MSS/RO/WS/Phyl
305 Barge Lord w/SW/PS/MSS/RO/WS/Phyl

Troops
65 5x Warr
55 Pulsetek
65 5x Warr


HS
AB
AB


Primary 2


HQ
305 Barge Lord w/SW/PS/MSS/RO/WS/Phyl
305 Barge Lord w/SW/PS/MSS/RO/WS/Phyl

Troops
65 5x Warr
55 Pulsetek
65 5x Warr


HS
AB
AB


1970.

Man. That looks like fun. People would get pretty sad faced with 4 of those bad boys thrown in their face.

That's life as a cron player - either hated or pitied.

Classic wraithwing could be run as a quite shooty version now, if double detachments are allowed:

HQ: Destrolord (mss, weave) 160
TROOP: 5 Warriors + Night Scythe 165
TROOP: 5 Warriors + Night Scythe 165
FAST: 6 Wraiths 210
HEAVY: Annibarge 90
HEAVY: Annibarge 90
HEAVY: Annibarge 90

HQ: Destrolord (mss, weave) 160
TROOP: 5 Warriors + Night Scythe 165
TROOP: 5 Warriors + Night Scythe 165
FAST: 6 Wraiths 210
HEAVY: Annibarge 90
HEAVY: Annibarge 90

1850 points

Looks quite cheesy on the first glance, but I'm actually not sure it's all that good for what the meta might start to look like soon. It has nothing besides the warscythes against AV14, and Imperial Knights are also a thing now (probably even if lords of war aren't in your local meta). You could glance 'em to death with tesla, but it doesn't seem like it would actually work most of the time.

Running CCBs instead of destrolords might be the future if they're actually good, as with taking them crypteks become available and stormteks are something that's needed for the anti-AV reasons mentioned above. However, all this costs so much more, that you don't actually need a double FOC, as you won't have points for more than three annibarges anyway. Haven't really counted a list yet, as I'm not sure if I want to run wraiths without destrolords.

@MLKTH, the revised wraithwing is nasty. Nine destructors in 1850 points with 4 troops is going to cause problems for lots of opponents.

Your key point though is that the meta is likely to change to include more AV14 and flyers. We'll probably see an abundance of 2+ armour saves running around as well in various forms.

The AB is a great all round unit, however AP- is likely to hurt its utility in 7th. For dedicated AT (plus some psychic protection) Scarabs and spyders are better.

In the list you posted, I think it would do well in an Eternal War mission. Very well in fact...if we'd had double FOC in 6th under 2000pts I think Crons would have been very competitive based on that.

For Maelstrom missions in 7th though, there is a lot of shooting, but one would have to be very careful with scythe positioning to maintain the mobility of the superscoring troops.

More playtesting is needed, but for maelstrom so far my gut is saying 2-3 AB, 2 NS with min warriors +cryptek, 2 GA with min warriors +cryptek, 2x3 scarabs, 2x2 spyders will be a solid core. That's around 1200pts without overlords or CC/Assasination options.

Played my first game against Eldar last night. Same guy and same basic lists that we played back in 6th. Rather than 12 powers per turn, he only got of 2-3. Hammer and Anvil deployment, I was actually able to get into contact with his jetbikes (ie, my wraiths hadn't been shot off the table in 2 turns).

I think we're strong. I don't think that we should minimize the troops in the Ghost Arks, however. Those 5 extra bodies represent 1/3 of expected shooting output of the Ghost Ark.

Agreed Anpu-adom. I think you maximize the Ghost Ark and the Warriors inside when you fully load them with either 10 Warriors or 9+ Cryptek. Besides, it'll also help against the flamer hits we get in the vehicle. You can't use the repair rule if you don't have any Warriors left after they've been melted by either a heavy flamer, hellhound, or baleflamer.

12 AV 13 Vehicles...my word...

I was just playing with the following build...
2 Overlords decked out on a CCBarge
5 5man Warrior squads in a Night Scythe
6 Annihilation Barges...
That fits in 1850 and only 2 CAD's... I'm not disappointed by a list that fits in 11 tesla destructors...

 Anpu-adom wrote:
That fits in 1850 and only 2 CAD's... I'm not disappointed by a list that fits in 11 tesla destructors...

Holy shi-

The Demons have been FAQed when they chariot up they lose IC. The Necrons have not been.

 Mythra wrote:
The Demons have been FAQed when they chariot up they lose IC. The Necrons have not been.

I played with a CCB leading some Wraiths. Just figuring out where hits go... who decides where hits go, and such... well, it was a bit of a pain. Losing IC would solve a lot of headaches.

Remind me again why we want to attach CCB Overlords to units of Wraiths?

 skoffs wrote:
Remind me again why we want to attach CCB Overlords to units of Wraiths?

Soak up small arms fire with CCB (immune to it), let Wraiths use their 3++. The CCB essentially becomes a taxi for your Wraiths.

That is, if you want to be TFG.

 skoffs wrote:
Remind me again why we want to attach CCB Overlords to units of Wraiths?

Replacing the Destroyer Lord with a CCB to lead a unit of Wraiths gives you enough survivability to push through the Tau gunline.

The CCB is bringing straight assault tactics back into 40k.

I hate to burst this bubble, but you can't join a chariot and a rider to anything, even if it is an IC.

Firstly, even assuming you keep IC, which I don't think is the case (see the Dark Eldar FAQ), your unit type will be Chariot, with Independent Character special rule. Hence, the SurfLord is a vehicle.

Second, the chariot has a transport capacity of 1.

So, as the rider and unit are one you are either:

-trying to join a vehicle to an infantry unit (not allowed - the rule specifically states that characters cannot join units that CONTAIN vehicles); or
- the unit (being the wraiths with an IC) are partially embarked on the chariot, which is also not allowed.

 Anpu-adom wrote:

 Mythra wrote:
The Demons have been FAQed when they chariot up they lose IC. The Necrons have not been.

I played with a CCB leading some Wraiths. Just figuring out where hits go... who decides where hits go, and such... well, it was a bit of a pain. Losing IC would solve a lot of headaches.

That is just so wrong.

I would never try that unless it was FAQ'd as legal.