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.

From Brom on TDC

I don't think many people have keyed into this (I didn't until recently) but the FAQ changed the wording from moral to leadership tests on the TGL.. i.e. fearless and daemons still test! Great way to stop an invisible hound unit from wrecking your ravagers, same for boyz. With jink I take these over FFs. Just a fringe bennie on top of -1 Ld bubbles.

I take nightshields and TGL on my Raiders and Dias. And yes, they can and should be upgraded. You have an expensive unit to protect.

It must be my local meta then. My most frequent opponent plays Tyranids, so the 6" decrease to his shooting range is delicious. Local tournaments involve mostly CSM, SM and Chaos Daemons, so not that much Ignores Cover shooting that could really threaten the Raiders (except for some Blastmasters).

Good catch with the Torment Grenade Launcher. They might be handy when in the danger of being charged by some Daemons or Hormagaunts and the like.

 SarisKhan wrote:

Btw, I'm a bit intrigued by the Night Shields vs. Flickerfield debate (on Raiders). Isn't it better to give them Night Shields to reduce enemy's range and then Jink when necessary for a 4+ cover instead of a 5++? Night Shields have been working wonders for me so far. What would be the instances when a Flickerfield is better?

Well, the obvious answer is when the enemy is so close that the 6" doesn't matter.
Can't you take both?

-Matt


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 felixcat wrote:
I do rely a bit on nightshields and jink though which are givens and hope for LoS blocking terrain and do cover my dias with a raider/ravager as well.

Spend 75 points on a Bastion to hide behind?
I think I'd find the points for it if I were planning a skimmer assault.

Shingen wrote:
Yes you can. They removed the restriction from the FAQ so you can add upgrades as per the Raider.

They didn't "remove the restriction" The restriction was already there. It's just that some people didn't understand it so they HAD to put an FAQ out.

And they might yet again. FAQ's are still coming in. That's like saying they "took away the Necron allowance" on Deathmarks granting their ability to Royal Court members. Are you really going to make someone not do that, if they show the FAQ to you from 6th?

I DO understand and agree that we need to demand that GW update all the FAQ's more thoroughly to coverthe stuff they used to cover, one way or another. butthe precedent is more strongly in the favor of NOT doing it so I'm not going to, personally.

 Jancoran wrote:

Shingen wrote:
Yes you can. They removed the restriction from the FAQ so you can add upgrades as per the Raider.

They didn't "remove the restriction" The restriction was already there. It's just that some people didn't understand it so they HAD to put an FAQ out.

And they might yet again. FAQ's are still coming in. That's like saying they "took away the Necron allowance" on Deathmarks granting their ability to Royal Court members. Are you really going to make someone not do that, if they show the FAQ to you from 6th?

I DO understand and agree that we need to demand that GW update all the FAQ's more thoroughly to coverthe stuff they used to cover, one way or another. butthe precedent is more strongly in the favor of NOT doing it so I'm not going to, personally.

Not everyone played in 6th edition. If GW chooses not to having it currently in the rules, then the only method left is to interpret the current rules.
I think this forum even requires rules discussions to be based on current rules.
Totally agree that GW should cover FAQ changes from 6th to 7th. Seems like the current plan is to ignore it until the next round of books comes out.

I dont care if they did. The precedent is there.

So you HAVE to argue that ALL the missing FAQ's are invalid then right? I think that is a slippery slope. I wouldnt do that. I play as intended. And as far as i can tell, they didnt intend this to be allowed.

They literally took the time out to delete it from the FAQ. The only precedent here is following the most up to date version of the rules. Arguing some sort RAI based off how it used to be is going to get you nowhere outside of a casual group.


That being said, I still feel you are correct and that the specifications for the Dais are already given and at no stage is the option to take upgrades on it given, and that the FAQ was just a clarification of this. But your approach is wrong, find something in the rules to support this not just a very subjective RAI approach. I think the fact that it's such a grey area is why that FAQ was so important to stop it, and without it there there is nothing stopping you from upgrading as per any other Raider entry in your army.


Also, wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an updates FAQ. And when it comes I wouldn't expect too much clarification from it. Welcome to GW, home of the lazy.

The part from FAQ preventing Dais from taking Raider upgrades was (appears to be) specifically removed, but we're supposed to act as if it was still there.

The part from FAQ describing Heldrake's weapon as turret mounted was (appears to be) specifically removed, but we're supposed to act as if it never was there.

See what I did there?

 SarisKhan wrote:
The part from FAQ preventing Dais from taking Raider upgrades was (appears to be) specifically removed, but we're supposed to act as if it was still there.

As a DE player, I don't remember there being permission in the DE Codex allowing the Dais to take upgrades in the first place. It certainly isn't mentioned in the Dais section of the codex.

Shingen wrote:
Yes you can. They removed the restriction from the FAQ so you can add upgrades as per the Raider.

Except the book doesn't tell you you can. It says it's treated LIKE a raider and even directs you to p44. Thing is, it's not actually a raider so there is no permission to buy upgrades from a raiders entry. Only raiders can buy upgrades. The FAQ merely ended a rules dispute in one sides favor. Without the FAQ we have equal argument on both interpretations. I play conservatively even if I think it's silly. So for me it is just a 13/13/10 ravager that carries 10 homies.

Red Corsair summed it up pretty well. I've been going with what seems to be the majority that we are allowed to take upgrades, but somehow I think the main reason the majority feels this way is it's what's best suited to them, being that almost everyone who cares or even knows about the argument is likely a DE player. However, seeing now that others feel the same as me I'm going to stick to upgrade less Dais from now on in my strategy talk, until we can get confirmation either way. Just to be on the safe side.

Agreed, if the dais was allowed to be upgraded they would have said so in the book or put a list of upgrades below the dais entry.

So this is a tangent but given that logan and wolf lords for SW are gaining a wolf chariot, it made me wonder if thats a possible choice for DE. Basically design a Vect model and make the dais either a transport for royal courts or a chariot. I could definitely see a chariot similar to the CCB fitting into DE.

Pure speculation/wishlisting here.

The local GW store manager agrees with it that it can take upgrades.

In 5th edition it might have been a bit overpowered but if you look at some of the other units available now it's not really.

I don't even use the dais but think upgrades are right.

Shingen wrote:
The local GW store manager agrees with it that it can take upgrades.

In 5th edition it might have been a bit overpowered but if you look at some of the other units available now it's not really.

I don't even use the dais but think upgrades are right.

That's good too.

I am not saying one way is correct, merely that both have equally viable interpretations. Each group should discuss it and decide for themselves.

However, I think it's wrong to claim one way is the right way or only correct way to interpret it.

Again for me, when in any doubt, I take the least advantage possible.

Pretty much exactly that.

The guy who runs the gaming center near me says its not allowed it but he runs tournaments etc and you know how strict tournament players and organisers can be.

This is a similar argument to the whole Beastpack gets FNP from the Beastmasters argument. The difference is in that case there is nothing to support that you can do it in the codex at all. The Dais on the other hand explicitly says it is classed as a Raider (treated exactly).

Thats the only reason I argue for it, you could say its open to translation however its right there in black and white.

Well there really IS. the wording of the Special Rule states that if you have that rule in the unit, then those with the rule can gain pain tokens. It then goes on to say that the EFFECT of those pain tokens apply to the unit. so theres two issues. One is, who gets the tokens? Obviously, those with the special Rule. What happens if they die? Tokens go with em. What happens WHILE those with the special rule has them? It applies benefits to the unit.

The RULE and who gets it is separate from the issue of who benefits in the same way that other special rules apply to the unit while a person with it is alive in the unit.

We've gone rounds on that one on Thedarkcity.net. But we've always come to the same conclusion: Thosewithout the rule benefit, but the ones with the rule actually accumulate the tokens.

This is all tangential to my reasons for NOT DSing the Dias. I am not willing to give up the potential for a turn two assault. And the Dias can be hidden turn one and it does have jink and it is AV13. If the organizer disallows the nightshields I can live with it.

Here is the list btw so you can see what I'm after.

Asrubael Vect
Haemonculus Liquifier Gun
8 Wyches Haywire
Dias of Destruction Dark Lances Nightshields TGL
- 614 -

Fuegan
Haemonculus Liquifier Gun Crucible of Malediction
4 Grotesques 1 Abberration Flesh Gauntlet
Raider Disintegrators Nightshields TGL
- 600 -

2x 5 Warriors Blaster
2x Raider Disintegrators Nightshields TGL
- 270 -

2x 3 Windrider Jetbikes Shuriken Cannon
- 122 -

2 Ravager Nightshields TGL
- 240 -

Now it is a dual hammer list. If either the raider or the Dias goes down turn one ( which I'll do my best to prevent) I still haven't conceded the match. It is an 1850 list so I have overloaded on a few units and yes, it has the fun reather than the uber competitive attitude but hey, it is strong enough. The Fuegan raider will attempt to rsh forward , will split fire, will get the crucible off and try and do some major disruption as well. Both hammers are fearless and FNP too.

Now obviously a beastpack is cheaper. We accept that. I know it is not to everyone's taste - I get that too. It has weaknesses. I accept that. But there is no way I should be using DS to enhance the list ...

The notion of adding a bastion is actually quite tempting BTW. I will consider what could be dropped for it.

 felixcat wrote:

This is all tangential to my reasons for NOT DSing the Dias. I am not willing to give up the potential for a turn two assault. And the Dias can be hidden turn one and it does have jink and it is AV13. If the organizer disallows the nightshields I can live with it.

Here is the list btw so you can see what I'm after.

Asrubael Vect
Haemonculus Liquifier Gun
8 Wyches Haywire
Dias of Destruction Dark Lances Nightshields TGL
- 614 -

Fuegan
Haemonculus Liquifier Gun Crucible of Malediction
4 Grotesques 1 Abberration Flesh Gauntlet
Raider Disintegrators Nightshields TGL
- 600 -

2x 5 Warriors Blaster
2x Raider Disintegrators Nightshields TGL
- 270 -

2x 3 Windrider Jetbikes Shuriken Cannon
- 122 -

2 Ravager Nightshields TGL
- 240 -

Now it is a dual hammer list. If either the raider or the Dias goes down turn one ( which I'll do my best to prevent) I still haven't conceded the match. It is an 1850 list so I have overloaded on a few units and yes, it has the fun reather than the uber competitive attitude but hey, it is strong enough. The Fuegan raider will attempt to rsh forward , will split fire, will get the crucible off and try and do some major disruption as well. Both hammers are fearless and FNP too.

Now obviously a beastpack is cheaper. We accept that. I know it is not to everyone's taste - I get that too. It has weaknesses. I accept that. But there is no way I should be using DS to enhance the list ...

The notion of adding a bastion is actually quite tempting BTW. I will consider what could be dropped for it.

I think that'd be a fun list to throw around. I'd lose the Haemonculus from Vect's squad though, he ruins your Fleet advantage. Maybe start him in the Dais to give them a token, then kick him out?

 Jancoran wrote:
Well there really IS. the wording of the Special Rule states that if you have that rule in the unit, then those with the rule can gain pain tokens. It then goes on to say that the EFFECT of those pain tokens apply to the unit. so theres two issues. One is, who gets the tokens? Obviously, those with the special Rule. What happens if they die? Tokens go with em. What happens WHILE those with the special rule has them? It applies benefits to the unit.

The RULE and who gets it is separate from the issue of who benefits in the same way that other special rules apply to the unit while a person with it is alive in the unit.

We've gone rounds on that one on Thedarkcity.net. But we've always come to the same conclusion: Thosewithout the rule benefit, but the ones with the rule actually accumulate the tokens.

I agree entirely, it just doesn't seem as set in stone.

 Homeskillet wrote:

I think that'd be a fun list to throw around. I'd lose the Haemonculus from Vect's squad though, he ruins your Fleet advantage. Maybe start him in the Dais to give them a token, then kick him out?

Haemonculus jumps out of the Dias and mans the Bastion?

So I have been thinking about beast packs and beaststars. What do you guys think about running full beast pack next to the beast star? The beast pack with no special characters is already pretty deadly. and the beaststar has amazing survivability is you can get the powers. The benefit to running two packs would be if you can't get the powers or first turn you can charge both packs up. as they kill one pack you can jump your special character into the other.

I am looking at a something like:

baron
2 units of wyches in venoms
2 packs of 4 beast masters, 20 khymera and 4 flocks

farseer
Jetbikes
wraithknight
===========
about 1500

 lambsandlions wrote:
So I have been thinking about beast packs and beaststars. What do you guys think about running full beast pack next to the beast star? The beast pack with no special characters is already pretty deadly. and the beaststar has amazing survivability is you can get the powers. The benefit to running two packs would be if you can't get the powers or first turn you can charge both packs up. as they kill one pack you can jump your special character into the other.

I am looking at a something like:

baron
2 units of wyches in venoms
2 packs of 4 beast masters, 20 khymera and 4 flocks

farseer
Jetbikes
wraithknight
===========
about 1500

I'd rather stay with one Beast Star and provide lots of ranged support. That is actually what I'm planning to do with my current army.

Anyway, you've got the Beast Packs wrong, mate. 4 Beast Masters is 10 Khymerae + 4 Flocks, or 20 Khymerae.

 SarisKhan wrote:


I'd rather stay with one Beast Star and provide lots of ranged support. That is actually what I'm planning to do with my current army.

Anyway, you've got the Beast Packs wrong, mate. 4 Beast Masters is 10 Khymerae + 4 Flocks, or 20 Khymerae.

Oh in that case I would probably take 5 beast masters, 20 khymera and 2 flocks.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Homeskillet wrote:

I think that'd be a fun list to throw around. I'd lose the Haemonculus from Vect's squad though, he ruins your Fleet advantage. Maybe start him in the Dais to give them a token, then kick him out?

Haemonculus jumps out of the Dias and mans the Bastion?

Lol, or have him tactically retreat out of LoS (AKA run away). just tell him he ain't got to go home, but he got to get the heck off the Dais!

Am I the only one that hates that our power unit isn't made of Dark Eldar?

Eldar's power units are made of anti-grav as well as whatever makes massive Wraith nights, I can only assume the tears of a thousand Sisters of Battle players

CSM's power unit is (was?) made of Heldrake

Vehicles or Walker/MCs being the heavy lifters also applys to IG, Crons and Tau

The main exceptions I think are Tyranids & Daemons who are all well, Tyranids and Daemons, Imperial Knights, as well as GK & different Power army books with Centurions and awesome IC's, but even thats debatable with Dreadknight for GK & Stormtalons/TFC/Pods/BA fast Tanks/Land Raider for SM or whatever they choose to run as the power unit

lambsandlions wrote:

 SarisKhan wrote:


I'd rather stay with one Beast Star and provide lots of ranged support. That is actually what I'm planning to do with my current army.

Anyway, you've got the Beast Packs wrong, mate. 4 Beast Masters is 10 Khymerae + 4 Flocks, or 20 Khymerae.

Oh in that case I would probably take 5 beast masters, 20 khymera and 2 flocks.

A tanky version, but whatever floats your boat. And yes, that would be rules-legal.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Am I the only one that hates that our power unit isn't made of Dark Eldar?

You mean the birds and doggies? Or are you referring to the single Eldar Jetseer who changes the Beast Pack from "You're gonna have trouble, boy" to "Mwahahaha, hahaha, hahahahaahaaaa!"?

So I tried out the Reaper and I am not impressed. It was exactly what I figured it to be.

Basically it suffers from one shot syndrome, which other vehicles have, but generally those other vehicles are artillery and scatter. The best shot is using it's single shot which well, misses.

In a 6 turn game you can expect it to miss on two turns, what sucks is you can't pick them, so having an open topped AV11 skimmer that misses it's first or even second shot makes it terrible in my opinion. Especially at 135!!!

Generally it's target number one and won't see turn 2 let alone 3.

Your better off paying 10 more points for a flier or saving 30 on a Ravager that will average 2 hits every turn.

To add insult to injury the one shot is only AP3 and without ignores cover even if you pen and roll for 3 more haywire effects all can be saved with one dies cover save.

I'll try it a few more games to cement my feelings, and also because it looks damn gorgeous. Really bummed that this thing performs so poorly though.

What are others' opinions on Scourges in Kill Team?

I prefer them over Reavers to be honest. 4+ save and a 6++ make them quite resiliant against most weapons you see(bolters, fleshborers, and such). Their better save helps against ignores cover weapons that make Reavers weep(Such as a barbed strangler with the ignores cover specialist).

Their weapons are better too- 18" and 3 shots I find to be perfect to murder anyone they look at, and plenty of additional weapons to plug any holes you have. Splintercannons for long range death, heat lances, and haywire blasters are my favorite armaments.

I find Reavers to not have as much room to turbo boost, and their bladevane attack to always be meh. Dying to flamers left and right(the whole nit enough room to manuever thing, and transports zipping up). They really only have access to antitank weapons besides a basic splinter rifle, so they're not really versatile either. The same problem as Hellions really, but at least the bikes have the option to turbo-boost when they can.

Haven't had a chance to try a beast master unit, so I would appreciate any Kill Team input on that.