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.

CCB also havent got infrantry key word so cant be buff by other hq aura - like anrakyr +1A.
Also harder to get cover bonus.

Kuguar6 wrote:
CCB also havent got infrantry key word so cant be buff by other hq aura - like anrakyr +1A.
Also harder to get cover bonus.

Running one around with a footslogging buff guy would be a waste of the mobility of the CCB though, so that's not really a big deal

If he needs to, he can give his MWBD (really Command Wave, but it's the same thing) to the Destroyer Lord accompanying him if there are no other legal targets nearby. Kind of a waste compared to what it would normally want to give it to, but at least it's not a complete waste.


Want to try this build out-
It's basically just anti-MEQ but it looks fun (melt two units a turn).

 Klowny wrote:
First thought for CCB is that he just needs a screen of scarabs and he makes DS'ing FO a lot more terrifying once he is positioned right.

Now we just need a point adjustment for FO.....

Also the idea that a CCB can't be targeted because it's behind tiny scarab bases is a bit silly. It's RAW and I intend to play it that way but it won't look right :p

Scarabs float though, so you can imagine a solid wall of scarabs flying in front of the CCB, instead of just crawling on the ground.
They may not have the fly keyword, but Scarabs were always capable of going several feet off the ground since 3rd ed.

I feel like we were just starting to get into the topic of DDAs vs Tesseract Arks before the FAQ dropped. In what situations should we be bringing one or the other? Do they fill different roles? Should we consider bringing one or two of each? Why do we have the TA rated as A+ and the DDA rated as A?

I feel like the added toughness and invul save is pretty beneficial for the TA, but the extra wounds on the DDA are crucial as well. The gun flexibility of the TA is really what your paying the premium for, being able to move and shoot your heavy weapon, even at -1bs, is really what I take TAs over DDAs for. I really think the DDA should be rated the same or higher than the TA, the points saved makes a huge difference when making lists.

On a more personal note, I can't stand the model for DDA and ghost arks... I almost always end up taking the TA because of this.

Actually, thinking about it, now that we have the FW stuff figured out and the CCB isn't garbage anymore, how viable would a pure QS Wall list be at the moment?
Like no troops, no nothing but vehicles.
The only major downside I can see would be, with no infantry, the CCB's Command Wave (which you are paying for) would be going to waste. That and you'd have no choice but to clear enemies off of objectives to claim them.

 skoffs wrote:
Actually, thinking about it, now that we have the FW stuff figured out and the CCB isn't garbage anymore, how viable would a pure QS Wall list be at the moment?
Like no troops, no nothing but vehicles.
The only major downside I can see would be, with no infantry, the CCB's Command Wave (which you are paying for) would be going to waste. That and you'd have no choice but to clear enemies off of objectives to claim them.

Yeah, Idk if the CCB is for the full QS list. Maybe something like this?



Can replace a stalker or immortals for the CCB if you really want one. Or all the scarabs, immortals, and toholk for a CCB and something else if you really want the theme. Maybe warriors and a ghost ark?

neenj wrote:
I feel like we were just starting to get into the topic of DDAs vs Tesseract Arks before the FAQ dropped. In what situations should we be bringing one or the other? Do they fill different roles? Should we consider bringing one or two of each? Why do we have the TA rated as A+ and the DDA rated as A?

I feel like the added toughness and invul save is pretty beneficial for the TA, but the extra wounds on the DDA are crucial as well. The gun flexibility of the TA is really what your paying the premium for, being able to move and shoot your heavy weapon, even at -1bs, is really what I take TAs over DDAs for. I really think the DDA should be rated the same or higher than the TA, the points saved makes a huge difference when making lists.

On a more personal note, I can't stand the model for DDA and ghost arks... I almost always end up taking the TA because of this.

We had a bit of a talk yesterday about it, TA are better at killing the big stuff, putting out d6 shots means on average more than a DDA, and it's tesla/gauss also is more effective on big stuff, but the DDA are good at both big targets, and the chaff, with the flayer arrays capable of putting out lots of hurt onto them.

Personally I favour the TA, it's more versatile, it's flamer is brutal, and it feels better, due to not being gimped if it's forced to move, allowing for more use of the fly keyword.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:
Actually, thinking about it, now that we have the FW stuff figured out and the CCB isn't garbage anymore, how viable would a pure QS Wall list be at the moment?
Like no troops, no nothing but vehicles.
The only major downside I can see would be, with no infantry, the CCB's Command Wave (which you are paying for) would be going to waste. That and you'd have no choice but to clear enemies off of objectives to claim them.

Eeeeh I feel toholk (and a spyder) are better worth the points investment over a CCB, he doesn't offer much compared to toholk in a QS spam list

Yeah, but Toholk can only do a single vehicle. In a QS Wall list, which vehicle should get the buff? You should be spamming them, after all.


Different subject,
Destroyers.
If you've got 12 models, is it best to split them 6 & 6? (for maximum RP reliability)
Or 3 & 3 & 3 & 3? (to get more HDs in your army)
Or 4 & 4 & 4? (mix of both)

 skoffs wrote:
Yeah, but Toholk can only do a single vehicle. In a QS Wall list, which vehicle should get the buff? You should be spamming them, after all.


Different subject,
Destroyers.
If you've got 12 models, is it best to split them 6 & 6? (for maximum RP reliability)
Or 3 & 3 & 3 & 3? (to get more HDs in your army)
Or 4 & 4 & 4? (mix of both)

Mayby 1 unit of 5D with 1HD and 2 unit of 3HD?
Or 6D and 2 x 3HD?

 skoffs wrote:
Yeah, but Toholk can only do a single vehicle. In a QS Wall list, which vehicle should get the buff? You should be spamming them, after all.


Different subject,
Destroyers.
If you've got 12 models, is it best to split them 6 & 6? (for maximum RP reliability)
Or 3 & 3 & 3 & 3? (to get more HDs in your army)
Or 4 & 4 & 4? (mix of both)

Yeah it's hard, not many HQ's work well with a QS list, but there won't be anything protecting the CCB, and while it is a good CC threat it's easily giving up slay the warlord, whereas toholk at least can buff a vehicle and help with seize. I'd say the stalker, as it's pretty important and doesn't have quantum shielding for some reason


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm going to try a destroyer list in the future, but they look pretty underwhelming for how expensive they are. I really hope I'm wrong and they're good, but I just can't see it atm compared to other, better units

Bit of fun, guys - how would you go about building a list around Trazyn?

 skoffs wrote:
Y
Different subject,
Destroyers.
If you've got 12 models, is it best to split them 6 & 6? (for maximum RP reliability)
Or 3 & 3 & 3 & 3? (to get more HDs in your army)
Or 4 & 4 & 4? (mix of both)

That's really hard. My instinct would be to go 6 & 6, as it's the most durable of the options and with the split fire rule there's far less danger of overkilling enemies.

However, the other methods give you more Heavy Destroyers - which seem quite valuable in this edition.

The honest answer is that I really don't know.

 Klowny wrote:
I'd say the stalker, as it's pretty important and doesn't have quantum shielding for some reason

Stalker have QS.

 Klowny wrote:
toholk at least can buff a vehicle and help with seize. I'd say the stalker, as it's pretty important and doesn't have quantum shielding for some reason

???

A CCB would be able to support Flayed Ones or Deathmarks on a flank.

So now that we've got the new FAQ and updated rules, has anyone noticed any new strategies? I haven't stopped by the thread since those came out. I suppose since they added CHARACTER to the CCB, that's made it much more viable.

The main one so far, I think, is potentially using a CCB in place of an Overlord. In addition to doing all the stuff an Overlord does, he also has a 24" gun and has the mobility and range to buff a backfield unit of FOs, Deathmarks or such, should the need arise.

I jumped for joy when I saw the change in the CCB but then I sat down to list build and I came to the same conclusion that it does an overlord's job for more points and less survivability.

The CCB strength is it's movement, gun, and extended range MWBD. So other than supporting praetorians those are qualities unneeded for supporting warriors or immortals.

I think people see QS and say yay but I'd rather have the standard 4+ invul. What are other players thoughts?

4+ Invuln versus QS as compared to some typical weapons:

Power Fist, -3 AP, d3 Damage
3 hits are 2 wounds against an OLord, is 1 unsaved wound, is d3 damage.
3 hits are 2 wounds against a CCB, is 1.67 unsaved wounds, is 1.38 (times d3) damage.

Lascannon, -3 AP, d6 damage
3 hits are 2 wounds against an OLord, is 1 unsaved wound, is d6 damage.
3 hits are 2 wounds against a CCB, is 1.67 unsaved wounds, is .97 (times d6) damage.

Thunder Hammer
3 hits are 2 wounds against an OLord, is 1 unsaved wound, is 3 damage.
3 hits are 2 wounds against a CCB, is 1.67 unsaved wounds, is 3.36 damage.

Krak Missile
3 hits are 2 wounds against an OLord, is 1 unsaved wound, is d6 damage.
3 hits are 2 wounds against a CCB, is 1.33 unsaved wounds, is .89 (times d6) damage.

What about plasma though? Players who know what they are doing will not use high damage weapons against QS, and instead use low damage - high rend - high strength weapons, like plasma, autocannons, starcannons, etc.

 buddha wrote:
The CCB strength is it's movement, gun, and extended range MWBD. So other than supporting praetorians

Still can't buff Praets (only <DYNASTY> INFANTRY. Praets lack Dynasty. Only Anrakyr and Imotekh can give them MWBD).

I see CCB's main buff buddies being Destroyers. Similar speeds, so they can keep up. Destroyers can always use a +1 to hit, giving them borderline auto-hit status. Anything gets close to threaten the Ds and the CCB can run them down (and then FLY back to shoot, which is premium).


This is what I'm currently toying with -

 buddha wrote:
I jumped for joy when I saw the change in the CCB but then I sat down to list build and I came to the same conclusion that it does an overlord's job for more points and less survivability.

The CCB strength is it's movement, gun, and extended range MWBD. So other than supporting praetorians those are qualities unneeded for supporting warriors or immortals.

Well, surely it depends how you position your stuff? I mean, if all you've got is a big block of guys in the middle of the table who never spread out under any circumstances, sure.

However, if your Immortals are more spaced out, then the CCB can allow you to buff whichever squad you need each turn. It can also hang out with one squad (e.g. Destroyers) for Resurrection Orb purposes whilst still buffing a unit of Immortals or Warriors 12" away. What's more, it gives you options if you want to start using it more actively - in that you can suddenly zoom out 12" and then charge another 6-7".

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What about plasma though? Players who know what they are doing will not use high damage weapons against QS, and instead use low damage - high rend - high strength weapons, like plasma, autocannons, starcannons, etc.

Surely that's the advantage of it being a character though - they can't just fire whatever weapons they like at it. Instead, unless you've practically been tabled, you get to position it and pick your fights if and when you choose. I mean, if you leave it exposed, sure, but it's not like an Overlord would fare any better in that situation.

Actually, since its a character the only type of weapon that would be able to hurt it normally is a sniper type weapon, which have a damage value of 1 and can inflict mortal wounds. But the CCB and the overlord would get their armor save though (against basic rifles, anyway.)

 vipoid wrote:

 buddha wrote:
I jumped for joy when I saw the change in the CCB but then I sat down to list build and I came to the same conclusion that it does an overlord's job for more points and less survivability.

The CCB strength is it's movement, gun, and extended range MWBD. So other than supporting praetorians those are qualities unneeded for supporting warriors or immortals.

Well, surely it depends how you position your stuff? I mean, if all you've got is a big block of guys in the middle of the table who never spread out under any circumstances, sure.

However, if your Immortals are more spaced out, then the CCB can allow you to buff whichever squad you need each turn. It can also hang out with one squad (e.g. Destroyers) for Resurrection Orb purposes whilst still buffing a unit of Immortals or Warriors 12" away. What's more, it gives you options if you want to start using it more actively - in that you can suddenly zoom out 12" and then charge another 6-7".

Not really, the Wave of Command still happens at the start of the turn, so you can't zip to one and buff it if it's out of range. If your squads are 24" or less apart, then yes, sure.

I think it's good if you're going mechanized Warriors. 3 Ghost Arks with Warriors inside backed by a CCB can put and buff Warriors anywhere on the table (since Disembarking is at the start of the move phase and so is WoC, you can buff them as soon as they disembark). A fast, mechanized force is worth considering, though GArks are still pretty overcosted. Still, that's 42 Wounds + Warriors up the field with a CCB or two buffing them while they block for the Characters. Pretty decent midfield power.

Requizen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 buddha wrote:
I jumped for joy when I saw the change in the CCB but then I sat down to list build and I came to the same conclusion that it does an overlord's job for more points and less survivability.

The CCB strength is it's movement, gun, and extended range MWBD. So other than supporting praetorians those are qualities unneeded for supporting warriors or immortals.

Well, surely it depends how you position your stuff? I mean, if all you've got is a big block of guys in the middle of the table who never spread out under any circumstances, sure.

However, if your Immortals are more spaced out, then the CCB can allow you to buff whichever squad you need each turn. It can also hang out with one squad (e.g. Destroyers) for Resurrection Orb purposes whilst still buffing a unit of Immortals or Warriors 12" away. What's more, it gives you options if you want to start using it more actively - in that you can suddenly zoom out 12" and then charge another 6-7".

Not really, the Wave of Command still happens at the start of the turn, so you can't zip to one and buff it if it's out of range. If your squads are 24" or less apart, then yes, sure.

I think it's good if you're going mechanized Warriors. 3 Ghost Arks with Warriors inside backed by a CCB can put and buff Warriors anywhere on the table (since Disembarking is at the start of the move phase and so is WoC, you can buff them as soon as they disembark). A fast, mechanized force is worth considering, though GArks are still pretty overcosted. Still, that's 42 Wounds + Warriors up the field with a CCB or two buffing them while they block for the Characters. Pretty decent midfield power.

WoC and MVBD are at the beggin of your turn. Its before start of the movement phase...

Kuguar6 wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
I'd say the stalker, as it's pretty important and doesn't have quantum shielding for some reason

Stalker have QS.

skoffs wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
toholk at least can buff a vehicle and help with seize. I'd say the stalker, as it's pretty important and doesn't have quantum shielding for some reason

???

Spoiler:

My bad! Haha I don't know what's gotten into my head, must be all the street food over here, been having too much fun!

Still should give the stalker the D3, arks are either backfield, or have an invuln. And the +1 means the TA is has no penalty to moving and shooting.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Actually, since its a character the only type of weapon that would be able to hurt it normally is a sniper type weapon, which have a damage value of 1 and can inflict mortal wounds. But the CCB and the overlord would get their armor save though (against basic rifles, anyway.)

The difference between an o/lord and CCB is that there is a much higher chance of a CCB being the closest thing to the enemies guns than an o/lord sat in some immortals for example. The only thing that can keep up with a CCB is wraiths, and they are kinda expensive bodyguards, which will die to focused firepower, leaving your warlord high and dry.

Thinking about it now, the CCB doesn't really add much for what you pay for him. An anni barge is better spent on points. He adds a good CC threat but his command wave is wasted on anything mobile enough to stay with him as none of them can benefit from it.

Maybe t3 he can buff midfield warriors/immortals getting out of transports, but it feels a waste imo. Two whole turns of not doing much, and if he gets engaged in combat it's not hard for him to get overwhelmed. A single warscythe isn't going to stand up to masses attacks.

Requizen wrote:

Not really, the Wave of Command still happens at the start of the turn, so you can't zip to one and buff it if it's out of range.

I didn't think I'd mentioned zipping before buffing.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
What about plasma though? Players who know what they are doing will not use high damage weapons against QS, and instead use low damage - high rend - high strength weapons, like plasma, autocannons, starcannons, etc.

Plasma, -3 AP, 1 Damage
3 hits are 2 wounds against an OLord, is 1 unsaved wound, is 1 damage.
3 hits are 2 wounds against a CCB, is 1.67 unsaved wounds, is 1.67 damage.

Overcharged Plasma, -3 AP, 2 Damage
3 hits are 2 wounds against an OLord, is 1 unsaved wound, is 2 damage.
3 hits are 2 wounds against a CCB, is 1.67 unsaved wounds, is 2.78 damage.

I plan to run him as a CC threat on his own, surrounded by 6 wraiths with pistols. It's very mobile, quite survivable and has formidable punch against most non-horde targets.

 Klowny wrote:
I plan to run him as a CC threat on his own, surrounded by 6 wraiths with pistols. It's very mobile, quite survivable and has formidable punch against most non-horde targets.

If you don't mind me asking, why not use a Destroyer Lord for this instead?