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.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Orock wrote:
If you have three Pirana in a squad with a seeker middle each, and one pirana uses one missile, do the other two have to? Do the unused missles mysteriously vanish? The only reason people are grasping desperately for things like this to Nerf taught is this: haters gonna hate. It's seriously pathetic how rule lawyery people have become with this release. Part of it is because there is a not so silent minority that hate tau, and feel they should need have been added and don't fit with the grimdark setting of the game. Some hate what they see as the nerd anime fan faction. It's classic nerd hate on other nerds, like when magic fans look down on yugio or Pokemon fans for liking things they don't like.

Wow, that's quite a bit of anger.

Though to address your Seeker comparison, the reason that doesn't work is that a Seeker is an individual weapon hit, that doesn't scale with the number in the unit. A closer comparison would be if each time you fired a Piranha's Seeker missile, it affected all three Piranhas in that they all fired their missile, but did not consume their missiles, as in each Piranha basically shot three Seekers for the price of one, since in the case of the Holophoton all of the Ghostkeels get the benefit from it, the Seeker does not.

That comparison is irrelevant and innacurrate

That's kind of the point, that you can't compare the Holophoton to Seekers, since they do completely different things and one functions with a capped limit, while the other doesn't actually have a direct ceiling itself.

Folks - does it matter?

Specifically, does trying to convince the other, matter? We can all see there are two sides and that those sides don't agree.

I'm bored of reading a variety of same-old contextual examples of; if I had 3 seekers, each fired frag missile, sum greater than parts. But wait. Seekers can only stock krak grenades etc. etc.

How about we move on and discuss tactics.

With regards to Ghostkeels - they are either X strong or Y strong - Really easy to consider either/or (/both) when talking about tactics (this is a tactics thread).

Please do both and/or agree to disagree.

Razerous wrote:
Folks - does it matter?

At the end of the day, not really, as if there needs to be a vote there will be one and the results will dictate which way it works regardless of our individual preference. I just like discussing the rules is all.

So how about this, what tactics are you most excited for in either of the new codices? For me it's probably the Dawnblade as a whole, because of the awesome mech army it allows for, and it provides a formation that's heavy on the Skyrays as an option.

I believe our best formation is the Drone Net from Mint'ka. Intercepting markerlights ftw!

 Tinkrr wrote:

notredameguy10 wrote:


And that would be no different than if i had 3 ghost keels as seperate units. I would be able to use it 3 times, same as if i had 3 in 1 squad.

No, see this is what I'm trying to get across, it's not the same at all.

Re-read what I wrote there, two separate units of Ghostkeels play completely differently against shooting than one unit of two Ghostkeels. As in if your opponent has two squads of powerful shooting, and targets your single Ghostkeel with both, he can most likely kill one of the two Ghostkeels, but if your unit of two gets targeted by the same shooting, both Ghostkeels will survive. Yes, in the grand scheme you'd still soak two turns of shooting from those two squads, but in one scenario twice as many Ghostkeels survive, which is a huge difference.


The only time it's comparable is if for whatever they decide to shoot each squad at a different Ghostkeel, since then both squads get Holophotoned, and if that decision from your opponent sounds like it's insane, it should say something because that's basically what happens when you get the double Holophoton in one unit of two Ghostkeels.

Again... it doesnt matter one bit how many are in my unit. It matters how many are in the AFFECTED unit! The AFFECTED unit is NOT the Ghostkeels!

DirtyDeeds wrote:
I believe our best formation is the Drone Net from Mint'ka. Intercepting markerlights ftw!

Yea, that formation is pretty crazy, it gives you Pathfinders that can move and shoot at full BS, have more toughness, have the assault phase move, and then a pile of extra abilities.

 Jancoran wrote:


Again... it doesnt matter one bit how many are in my unit. It matters how many are in the AFFECTED unit! The AFFECTED unit is NOT the Ghostkeels!

That's too reductionist of a view.


I think the best way to look at it, is well imagine you have two Ghostkeels, and they have two strong shooting units that could kill a single Ghostkeel each with shooting without the Holophoton stopping them. If each Ghostkeel is an individual unit they can focus fire and kill one, but if both are one unit and can double up on Holophoton those two units can't kill either Ghostkeel. Now the only time they don't kill a Ghostkeel if there are two individual Ghostkeels (outside of bad luck), is if they decide to target each Ghostkeel with one of those units, which we can both agree is probably a really bad play, so now when you combine those two Ghostkeels the only option you give them in that scenario is that bad play.

Clearly that's a theoretical situation, but it does show it's not just a matter of their units being affected, but also your units since in one case you retain 50% more Ghostkeel than the other, despite affecting the same amount of models with the ability on their end as a whole.

 Tinkrr wrote:
So how about this, what tactics are you most excited for in either of the new codices? For me it's probably the Dawnblade as a whole, because of the awesome mech army it allows for, and it provides a formation that's heavy on the Skyrays as an option.

I did miss Skyrays - I regularly played them last codex.

A question with regards to formations (and Farsight Enclaves); Could I field a standard Hunter Contingent (with the Hunter Cadre + Aux Choices etc.) as well as a single Drone Net (the special lettered one)?

FSE: What is the interaction now, may I ask. I've heard people saying a suit-for-troops CAD - Does it still require a 3-man suit squad. Are bonding knives mandatory. What about a riptide wing (assuming ECPA are fine to issue to Riptide suits), curious!

The Piranha Party, I can see the merit but personally I'm not excited by it. I like the suits, to me it feels like how heavy armour should feel (but generally, the rules for tanks suck unless they are free/spammed/filled with boys). A couple of sentinels, a few chimeras, hellfounds, bassiliks and leman russ tanks - just don't provide the same Wow factor (current limitations could simply boil down to having to get boots and no vehicle-supporting rules).

Oh, one on the Drone Network, I feel like if I go with the Piranha wing, I'll bring it, but if I want something like the Skyray formation I'd cut the Piranhas and Drone Network for the Skyray group, since both do the same thing in theory. The Devilfish is a little annoying though since I probably won't have any foot troops, which makes me wish it was a Hammerhead.

Razerous wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:
So how about this, what tactics are you most excited for in either of the new codices? For me it's probably the Dawnblade as a whole, because of the awesome mech army it allows for, and it provides a formation that's heavy on the Skyrays as an option.

I did miss Skyrays - I regularly played them last codex.

A question with regards to formations (and Farsight Enclaves); Could I field a standard Hunter Contingent (with the Hunter Cadre + Aux Choices etc.) as well as a single Drone Net (the special lettered one)?

FSE: What is the interaction now, may I ask. I've heard people saying a suit-for-troops CAD - Does it still require a 3-man suit squad. Are bonding knives mandatory. What about a riptide wing (assuming ECPA are fine to issue to Riptide suits), curious!

The Piranha Party, I can see the merit but personally I'm not excited by it. I like the suits, to me it feels like how heavy armour should feel (but generally, the rules for tanks suck unless they are free/spammed/filled with boys). A couple of sentinels, a few chimeras, hellfounds, bassiliks and leman russ tanks - just don't provide the same Wow factor (current limitations could simply boil down to having to get boots and no vehicle-supporting rules).

It's weird that Skyrays got so left out, but I guess the new Piranha formation makes up for it with the new Drone Network?

As far as I know you can.

Well the Hunter Contingent style formation, which is Dawnbalde, has the clause that Crisis Suits are troops, and all units that can take Bonding Knives do so, but they no longer require the 3-man unit as far as I can tell. Now they just use either the Hunter Cad (can you take Suits in that as troops to fill the needed amount?) or the Retaliation Cadre as their core choice, which is pretty nice. Their special rule thing for the greater formation is they reroll the warlord trait if they want, and they get to mark an enemy unit each turn, and all of their units re-roll wound rolls against the marked unit, that's pretty strong.

The Piranha party for me will really depend on the ruling about how it functions, if it can do the "blink" thing where it just constantly pumps out drones each turn that's a huge amount of free points (I did the math and in three turn you're looking at like 1.2k points of free drones), but if it's every other turn like most reserves I'll probably just use them as a Seeker platform with some drone production abilities.

 Tinkrr wrote:


That's too reductionist of a view.
.

No. Its an entirely accurate portrayal is what it is. Lol. It is...in fact... not...affecting the Ghostkeels. How many are in the Ghostkeep unit? Irrelevant because the unit affected isn't the Ghostkels. that is in fact what it does. It affects a TOTAL at worst of three units once or one unit three times or whatever. I can fire a Lascannon unit, a Plasmavet unit and a group of Ogryn into them and their ability is toast. THAT"S it! Its done. All three Ghostkeels would have used up their thingee. Mountain from a mole hill.

i see no ITC ruling on this and so I will bide my time. This is really cut and dry so I dont know what to say that hasnt been said.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:


That's too reductionist of a view.
.

No. Its an entirely accurate portrayal is what it is. Lol. It is...in fact... not...affecting the Ghostkeels. How many are in the Ghostkeep unit? Irrelevant because the unit affected isn't the Ghostkels. that is in fact what it does. It affects a TOTAL at worst of three units once or one unit three times or whatever. I can fire a Lascannon unit, a Plasmavet unit and a group of Ogryn into them and their ability is toast. THAT"S it! Its done. All three Ghostkeels would have used up their thingee. Mountain from a mole hill.

i see no ITC ruling on this and so I will bide my time. This is really cut and dry so I dont know what to say that hasnt been said.

Ok, let me ask you this, do you acknowledge the difference of power between the two scenarios I've mapped out? Nothing to do with a rule dispute, just do you see a difference of power in each case? I'll mention them again now:

Scenario 1:

Two Ghostkeels in separate units with two enemy firing squads, the two squads target one individual Ghostkeel and the first is holophotoned, the second isn't. One Ghostkeel dies, you take your turn, then they take their turn and repeat the process to kill the second Ghostkeel.

Scenario 2:

Two Ghostkeels in one unit. get targeted by the same enemy units, both enemy units get holophotoned and you go into your turn with both Ghostkeels alive, the turn after that both of those units shoot the two Ghostkeels and wipe them out.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:


That's too reductionist of a view.
.

No. Its an entirely accurate portrayal is what it is. Lol. It is...in fact... not...affecting the Ghostkeels. How many are in the Ghostkeep unit? Irrelevant because the unit affected isn't the Ghostkels. that is in fact what it does. It affects a TOTAL at worst of three units once or one unit three times or whatever. I can fire a Lascannon unit, a Plasmavet unit and a group of Ogryn into them and their ability is toast. THAT"S it! Its done. All three Ghostkeels would have used up their thingee. Mountain from a mole hill.

i see no ITC ruling on this and so I will bide my time. This is really cut and dry so I dont know what to say that hasnt been said.

Ok, let me ask you this, do you acknowledge the difference of power between the two scenarios I've mapped out? Nothing to do with a rule dispute, just do you see a difference of power in each case? I'll mention them again now:

Scenario 1:

Two Ghostkeels in separate units with two enemy firing squads, the two squads target one individual Ghostkeel and the first is holophotoned, the second isn't. One Ghostkeel dies, you take your turn, then they take their turn and repeat the process to kill the second Ghostkeel.

Scenario 2:

Two Ghostkeels in one unit. get targeted by the same enemy units, both enemy units get holophotoned and you go into your turn with both Ghostkeels alive, the turn after that both of those units shoot the two Ghostkeels and wipe them out.

A strawman argument is one in which someone poses an argument that is other than the actual argument and seeks to gain agreement on IT as if it were equivalent to agreement on the issue at hand (which of course it is not). Can we agree?

So what we are talking about is a piece of wargear on a 130 point model (and they don't come much more expensive than that) that allows you to take less damage from one units turn per game. Less. And if you are willing to pay that cost again, one more unit. and so on. Just as, when I purchase one, i get two drones. They EACH get the drones. The unit as a whole benefits from both. That is how it works. You would no more deny two Psykers in a unit their Powers than you would the Ghostkeels gear.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:


That's too reductionist of a view.
.

No. Its an entirely accurate portrayal is what it is. Lol. It is...in fact... not...affecting the Ghostkeels. How many are in the Ghostkeep unit? Irrelevant because the unit affected isn't the Ghostkels. that is in fact what it does. It affects a TOTAL at worst of three units once or one unit three times or whatever. I can fire a Lascannon unit, a Plasmavet unit and a group of Ogryn into them and their ability is toast. THAT"S it! Its done. All three Ghostkeels would have used up their thingee. Mountain from a mole hill.

i see no ITC ruling on this and so I will bide my time. This is really cut and dry so I dont know what to say that hasnt been said.

Ok, let me ask you this, do you acknowledge the difference of power between the two scenarios I've mapped out? Nothing to do with a rule dispute, just do you see a difference of power in each case? I'll mention them again now:

Scenario 1:

Two Ghostkeels in separate units with two enemy firing squads, the two squads target one individual Ghostkeel and the first is holophotoned, the second isn't. One Ghostkeel dies, you take your turn, then they take their turn and repeat the process to kill the second Ghostkeel.

Scenario 2:

Two Ghostkeels in one unit. get targeted by the same enemy units, both enemy units get holophotoned and you go into your turn with both Ghostkeels alive, the turn after that both of those units shoot the two Ghostkeels and wipe them out.

A strawman argument is one in which someone poses an argument that is other than the actual argument and seeks to gain agreement on IT as if it were equivalent to agreement on the issue at hand (which of course it is not). Can we agree?

So what we are talking about is a piece of wargear on a 130 point model (and they don't come much more expensive than that) that allows you to take less damage from one units turn per game. Less. And if you are willing to pay that cost again, one more unit. and so on. Just as, when I purchase one, i get two drones. They EACH get the drones. The unit as a whole benefits from both. That is how it works. You would no more deny two Psykers in a unit their Powers than you would the Ghostkeels gear.

Ok, let's go with the Psyker thing, how do two Psykers in a unit interact with one another?

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:


That's too reductionist of a view.
.

No. Its an entirely accurate portrayal is what it is. Lol. It is...in fact... not...affecting the Ghostkeels. How many are in the Ghostkeep unit? Irrelevant because the unit affected isn't the Ghostkels. that is in fact what it does. It affects a TOTAL at worst of three units once or one unit three times or whatever. I can fire a Lascannon unit, a Plasmavet unit and a group of Ogryn into them and their ability is toast. THAT"S it! Its done. All three Ghostkeels would have used up their thingee. Mountain from a mole hill.

i see no ITC ruling on this and so I will bide my time. This is really cut and dry so I dont know what to say that hasnt been said.

Ok, let me ask you this, do you acknowledge the difference of power between the two scenarios I've mapped out? Nothing to do with a rule dispute, just do you see a difference of power in each case? I'll mention them again now:

Scenario 1:

Two Ghostkeels in separate units with two enemy firing squads, the two squads target one individual Ghostkeel and the first is holophotoned, the second isn't. One Ghostkeel dies, you take your turn, then they take their turn and repeat the process to kill the second Ghostkeel.

Scenario 2:

Two Ghostkeels in one unit. get targeted by the same enemy units, both enemy units get holophotoned and you go into your turn with both Ghostkeels alive, the turn after that both of those units shoot the two Ghostkeels and wipe them out.

A strawman argument is one in which someone poses an argument that is other than the actual argument and seeks to gain agreement on IT as if it were equivalent to agreement on the issue at hand (which of course it is not). Can we agree?

So what we are talking about is a piece of wargear on a 130 point model (and they don't come much more expensive than that) that allows you to take less damage from one units turn per game. Less. And if you are willing to pay that cost again, one more unit. and so on. Just as, when I purchase one, i get two drones. They EACH get the drones. The unit as a whole benefits from both. That is how it works. You would no more deny two Psykers in a unit their Powers than you would the Ghostkeels gear.

Ok, let's go with the Psyker thing, how do two Psykers in a unit interact with one another?

They don't. they are what they are.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:


That's too reductionist of a view.
.

No. Its an entirely accurate portrayal is what it is. Lol. It is...in fact... not...affecting the Ghostkeels. How many are in the Ghostkeep unit? Irrelevant because the unit affected isn't the Ghostkels. that is in fact what it does. It affects a TOTAL at worst of three units once or one unit three times or whatever. I can fire a Lascannon unit, a Plasmavet unit and a group of Ogryn into them and their ability is toast. THAT"S it! Its done. All three Ghostkeels would have used up their thingee. Mountain from a mole hill.

i see no ITC ruling on this and so I will bide my time. This is really cut and dry so I dont know what to say that hasnt been said.

Ok, let me ask you this, do you acknowledge the difference of power between the two scenarios I've mapped out? Nothing to do with a rule dispute, just do you see a difference of power in each case? I'll mention them again now:

Scenario 1:

Two Ghostkeels in separate units with two enemy firing squads, the two squads target one individual Ghostkeel and the first is holophotoned, the second isn't. One Ghostkeel dies, you take your turn, then they take their turn and repeat the process to kill the second Ghostkeel.

Scenario 2:

Two Ghostkeels in one unit. get targeted by the same enemy units, both enemy units get holophotoned and you go into your turn with both Ghostkeels alive, the turn after that both of those units shoot the two Ghostkeels and wipe them out.

A strawman argument is one in which someone poses an argument that is other than the actual argument and seeks to gain agreement on IT as if it were equivalent to agreement on the issue at hand (which of course it is not). Can we agree?

So what we are talking about is a piece of wargear on a 130 point model (and they don't come much more expensive than that) that allows you to take less damage from one units turn per game. Less. And if you are willing to pay that cost again, one more unit. and so on. Just as, when I purchase one, i get two drones. They EACH get the drones. The unit as a whole benefits from both. That is how it works. You would no more deny two Psykers in a unit their Powers than you would the Ghostkeels gear.

Ok, let's go with the Psyker thing, how do two Psykers in a unit interact with one another?

They don't. they are what they are.

Ok, now how do two Ghostkeels interact? See the above two scenarios I posted.

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Tinkrr wrote:


That's too reductionist of a view.
.

No. Its an entirely accurate portrayal is what it is. Lol. It is...in fact... not...affecting the Ghostkeels. How many are in the Ghostkeep unit? Irrelevant because the unit affected isn't the Ghostkels. that is in fact what it does. It affects a TOTAL at worst of three units once or one unit three times or whatever. I can fire a Lascannon unit, a Plasmavet unit and a group of Ogryn into them and their ability is toast. THAT"S it! Its done. All three Ghostkeels would have used up their thingee. Mountain from a mole hill.

i see no ITC ruling on this and so I will bide my time. This is really cut and dry so I dont know what to say that hasnt been said.

Ok, let me ask you this, do you acknowledge the difference of power between the two scenarios I've mapped out? Nothing to do with a rule dispute, just do you see a difference of power in each case? I'll mention them again now:

Scenario 1:

Two Ghostkeels in separate units with two enemy firing squads, the two squads target one individual Ghostkeel and the first is holophotoned, the second isn't. One Ghostkeel dies, you take your turn, then they take their turn and repeat the process to kill the second Ghostkeel.

Scenario 2:

Two Ghostkeels in one unit. get targeted by the same enemy units, both enemy units get holophotoned and you go into your turn with both Ghostkeels alive, the turn after that both of those units shoot the two Ghostkeels and wipe them out.

A strawman argument is one in which someone poses an argument that is other than the actual argument and seeks to gain agreement on IT as if it were equivalent to agreement on the issue at hand (which of course it is not). Can we agree?

So what we are talking about is a piece of wargear on a 130 point model (and they don't come much more expensive than that) that allows you to take less damage from one units turn per game. Less. And if you are willing to pay that cost again, one more unit. and so on. Just as, when I purchase one, i get two drones. They EACH get the drones. The unit as a whole benefits from both. That is how it works. You would no more deny two Psykers in a unit their Powers than you would the Ghostkeels gear.

Ok, let's go with the Psyker thing, how do two Psykers in a unit interact with one another?

They don't. they are what they are.

Ok, now how do two Ghostkeels interact? See the above two scenarios I posted.

They dont. they are what they are. Each with its own powers, gear, etc...

...anyways

So it is the dawnblade detachment that effectively gives you Farsight Flavour things. So you couldn't have a standalone Farsight optimised stealth cadre, for example?

But you could have a standalone OSC + a standalone Riptide wing... then assuming the Riptides are characters (right?), pick one to be your Warlord and you have a Bound army list?

(Edit: So again.. Why Does It Matter? You will not agree. I could bet £££ and come out richer. This will not change. Stop trying to convince each other of any point - it is pointless AND it is derailing this thread on frankly worthless discussions)

 Jancoran wrote:


They dont. they are what they are. Each with its own powers, gear, etc...

Clearly the do :/. As I've shown there's a difference between having them in one squad or two, which means there's an interaction. How powerful the interaction is can be debated, but whether they function differently based on how many there are in a single unit isn't up for debate.

Consider two Psykers, how many powers you gain or dice you use doesn't change based on if the Psykers are individual or in a unit, but the Holophoton does.

Razerous wrote:
...anyways

So it is the dawnblade detachment that effectively gives you Farsight Flavour things. So you couldn't have a standalone Farsight optimised stealth cadre, for example?

But you could have a standalone OSC + a standalone Riptide wing... then assuming the Riptides are characters (right?), pick one to be your Warlord and you have a Bound army list?

(Edit: So again.. Why Does It Matter? You will not agree. I could bet £££ and come out richer. This will not change. Stop trying to convince each other of any point - it is pointless AND it is derailing this thread on frankly worthless discussions)

I'm not actually sure, and now that you bring it up I'd like to know how that functions with the new formations/contingents. Ideally I'd like to bring the Dawnblade force and then an OSC on the side, but I'm not sure if I can, and I'd lean towards that I can do that, but I'm simply not sure.

I think so, oddly enough. Maybe at worst you'd be required to take a basic CAD and use that, since it's not exactly possible to make a Riptide a character currently without takings a specific formation that basically eats up your whole army cost.

(It's not about convincing the other, it's about trying to understand the other's point of view, and the third parties that are on the fence that read the discussion. Basically, for me it's the old quote that essentially states that you can know your views perfectly, but if you can't understand the other side, at least from a conceptual stance, you know nothing about the topic, so I generally try to get the other sides views as concise and clear as I possibly can. As for the third party folks, well that's what most discussion is about, you will rarely convince the other side, but you can at least provide as much information as possible for bystanders to read an make an informed decision, and that's really who the discussion is about. )

Edit: Found the quote, I original thought it was Thomas Paine, but it was John Stewart Mill:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

Basically, it's important to understand the beliefs and views of others, regardless of how convinced you are of your own beliefs. The ladder half of the quote basically states that it's not just the literature itself that's important, but rather the direct people who are stating it, and their personal reasons for it.

Peeps...can we, for the love of God, please keep this thread talking about tactics? The ghostkeel argument is best had in YMDC. Why don't you start a thread over there if you need to keep hashing it out? If we want to talk about Ghostkeels, I, for one, would be interested in hearing some opinions on what is the best loadout for them, specifically a single one in an OSC.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Peeps...can we, for the love of God, please keep this thread talking about tactics? The ghostkeel argument is best had in YMDC. Why don't you start a thread over there if you need to keep hashing it out? If we want to talk about Ghostkeels, I, for one, would be interested in hearing some opinions on what is the best loadout for them, specifically a single one in an OSC.

Personally I like the CiR and a stim injector. The shield generator might be the right call, but it's rather expensive compared to the injector, thoughts? The Fusion Blaster secondary is always a good choice, especially if you're going with the OSC since then you get that much more use out of it, I wouldn't personally go for the burst cannon, the flamer at that point is probably just as good.

If you only take one of those, instead of both, the EWO is still probably cheap enough to take, despite the short range.

So.. back on track.

Ran DBC @2k today.
Retaliation + Ranged Support + Allied OSC

Quick Recap!
Turn 1: Chaos killed 1 pathfinder, wow shrouded is awesome. He ran two mauler fiends, bloodthirster and a bike squad at my OSC ghost.. on my turn ghost with just ion wiped a mauler, did one glance on the other, a lot of whiffing broadsides.
Turn 2: Chaos charged the Ghostkeel and with bad overwatch made it in. Ufff.. mauler fiends are bad to ghostkeel.. lost 1 and 2 drones. My turn.. auto reserves awesome. Killed.. bloodthirster, 2 defilers, bike squad, bloodletters, and destroyed flamer on helldrake.. amazing montka.
Turn 3 and onto 5 was pretty much chaos Lord and Damn dogs killing everything . I failed every leadership and lost every initiative..I lost every unit to sweeping advance this game; nothing else.
Game ended in blood bath, I easily won kill points but the objectives killed me.. I constantly pulled montka cards that didn't help me.. like reserves when I had none etc.
All in all. Love the DBC, small changes and I think it will be really solid.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Peeps...can we, for the love of God, please keep this thread talking about tactics? The ghostkeel argument is best had in YMDC. Why don't you start a thread over there if you need to keep hashing it out? If we want to talk about Ghostkeels, I, for one, would be interested in hearing some opinions on what is the best loadout for them, specifically a single one in an OSC.

There has already been a thread and locked by mods as the consensus by everyone but one person was reached.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tinkrr wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Peeps...can we, for the love of God, please keep this thread talking about tactics? The ghostkeel argument is best had in YMDC. Why don't you start a thread over there if you need to keep hashing it out? If we want to talk about Ghostkeels, I, for one, would be interested in hearing some opinions on what is the best loadout for them, specifically a single one in an OSC.

Personally I like the CiR and a stim injector. The shield generator might be the right call, but it's rather expensive compared to the injector, thoughts? The Fusion Blaster secondary is always a good choice, especially if you're going with the OSC since then you get that much more use out of it, I wouldn't personally go for the burst cannon, the flamer at that point is probably just as good.

If you only take one of those, instead of both, the EWO is still probably cheap enough to take, despite the short range.

SG is a complete waste on Ghostkeel (50 points!!!)
Stim Inj is too expensive relative to the cost of the model (35 points)
CIR is better in most situations
Fusion Blaster is best choice for secondary, unless you take a VT in which case BC is better
Flamer is trash as you should never be that close with your ghost keel to units that the flamer could actually damage

I would like to note from the earlier discussion, that your Warlord only has to be a character if you have characters in your army. If your army lacks any character, you may select any model to be your Warlord.

The Warlord wrote:When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. Unless specified otherwise, this must be a character mode. If you do not have any character models in your army, then select any other model in your army to be the Warlord. The model you choose a your Warlord also determines your Primary Detachment.

In other words, you can have an army of only Riptide, Ghostkeels, and Stealthsuits and you can select the Riptide to be the Warlord. However, if you purchase a single Stealthsuit Shas'vre character, they must be the Warlord.

notredameguy10 wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Peeps...can we, for the love of God, please keep this thread talking about tactics? The ghostkeel argument is best had in YMDC. Why don't you start a thread over there if you need to keep hashing it out? If we want to talk about Ghostkeels, I, for one, would be interested in hearing some opinions on what is the best loadout for them, specifically a single one in an OSC.

There has already been a thread and locked by mods as the consensus by everyone but one person was reached.

Do you have a link to the discussion please?

More and more I keep reading about the ITC and their nerfing of the Tau its honestly turning me off and my FLGS from ever adopting their format. I honestly wouldn't mind so much but it seems to me and from what I read and looked into that there is a general consensus that they have a habit of favoring Imperial armies over xenos factions.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Overcharged HBC is better in a lot of situations.Flyers? Which sounds better: 12 Str 6 AP 4 shots with rending or 3 Str 7 AP 2 shots?
anything not in a large group HBC is better.
Any high AV vehicles HBC is better

Actually forgot the HBC got Rending at its beefed up profile, for sure can see the merit of taking x1 or x2 Riptides with HBC's.

Also remember that you don't need a "warlord" or have Troops to have a "bound" (actually called battleforged) army. You simply need to adhere to the restrictions in the detachments you are selecting. An OSC, Riptide Wing, and Drone Net are as "Battleforged" as a normal CAD.

 gmaleron wrote:
More and more I keep reading about the ITC and their nerfing of the Tau its honestly turning me off and my FLGS from ever adopting their format. I honestly wouldn't mind so much but it seems to me and from what I read and looked into that there is a general consensus that they have a habit of favoring Imperial armies over xenos factions.

notredameguy10 wrote:

Overcharged HBC is better in a lot of situations.Flyers? Which sounds better: 12 Str 6 AP 4 shots with rending or 3 Str 7 AP 2 shots?
anything not in a large group HBC is better.
Any high AV vehicles HBC is better

Actually forgot the HBC got Rending at its beefed up profile, for sure can see the merit of taking x1 or x2 Riptides with HBC's.

I regularly take at least one Riptide with a HBC and an Earth Caste Pilot Array, and I never regret it. Re-rolls to Nova reliably give me the beefed up profile, whilst re-rolling 1s makes it very unlikely that the Riptide will take any damage from Get's Hot. The ECPA really does seem like it was meant for a HBC Riptide.

Plug an EWO and a Velocity Tracker on there too and you've got yourself an excellent and durable anti-flyer platform. We don't see entire armies of flyers in my area, but people generally take two or three in our games, and I've never needed more than the Riptide to deal with them.

I've already discussed it with my group and we all agree that Riptides should be able to take the ECPA, because it doesn't make much sense otherwise.

Razerous wrote:
...anyways

So it is the dawnblade detachment that effectively gives you Farsight Flavour things. So you couldn't have a standalone Farsight optimised stealth cadre, for example?

But you could have a standalone OSC + a standalone Riptide wing... then assuming the Riptides are characters (right?), pick one to be your Warlord and you have a Bound army list?

(Edit: So again.. Why Does It Matter? You will not agree. I could bet £££ and come out richer. This will not change. Stop trying to convince each other of any point - it is pointless AND it is derailing this thread on frankly worthless discussions)

This should effectively answer your question, and explain why I feel a FSE is definitely an important component (as you only get the obsec suits from there). Thinking about how to put Farsight bomb back together now that shadowsun can do her thing with them.

Nilok wrote:I would like to note from the earlier discussion, that your Warlord only has to be a character if you have characters in your army. If your army lacks any character, you may select any model to be your Warlord.

The Warlord wrote:When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. Unless specified otherwise, this must be a character mode. If you do not have any character models in your army, then select any other model in your army to be the Warlord. The model you choose a your Warlord also determines your Primary Detachment.

.

In other words, you can have an army of only Riptide, Ghostkeels, and Stealthsuits and you can select the Riptide to be the Warlord. However, if you purchase a single Stealthsuit Shas'vre character, they must be the Warlord.

Awesome point. Definitely viable

DirtyDeeds wrote:Also remember that you don't need a "warlord" or have Troops to have a "bound" (actually called battleforged) army. You simply need to adhere to the restrictions in the detachments you are selecting. An OSC, Riptide Wing, and Drone Net are as "Battleforged" as a normal CAD.

I thought you had to nominate one of your detachments to be your primary detachment & that has to include your warlord.

Right so you can field a FSE Hunter Contingent or call a OSC FSE . Might not do much besides giving PE:Orks etc but you can?

Razerous wrote:

DirtyDeeds wrote:Also remember that you don't need a "warlord" or have Troops to have a "bound" (actually called battleforged) army. You simply need to adhere to the restrictions in the detachments you are selecting. An OSC, Riptide Wing, and Drone Net are as "Battleforged" as a normal CAD.

I thought you had to nominate one of your detachments to be your primary detachment & that has to include your warlord.

Right so you can field a FSE Hunter Contingent or call a OSC FSE . Might not do much besides giving PE:Orks etc but you can?

Yes you do need to select one as your primary, but a formation can be a primary detachment in your army. So if you ran RipWing, OSC, and drone net. There are no "characters", which is fine. As someone above mentioned, in the BRB it covers this. You just select any model at this point to be your warlord.

Cheers

 gmaleron wrote:
More and more I keep reading about the ITC and their nerfing of the Tau its honestly turning me off and my FLGS from ever adopting their format. I honestly wouldn't mind so much but it seems to me and from what I read and looked into that there is a general consensus that they have a habit of favoring Imperial armies over xenos factions.

I haven't really seen favourtism from them in that regard, and their top 20 players is a mix of pretty much every army out there. Additionally they did just vote to give Orks a massive buff that only extends to Orks.

Then again, I'm probably biased as I really appreciate what the ITC is doing.