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.

 Maxurugi wrote:
Actually, the Valkyrie was not only nerfed twice, but thrice. It can no longer

-keep units from shooting the next turn by charging them
-block paths for non-flyers
-bring infantry units into close range on turn one, i.e. for hot-shot lasguns, meltas, grenades or a higher chance of successfully charging

This is so sad. I've always taken at least one, and they alway had their use, but now all they do is their own shooting, which is poor. It's really hard for me to justify taking one now, which kinda ruins my mechanized force style-wise.



edit: ninja'd

Well renegade ogryn Darts dead, beyond Slaanesh.

 Maxurugi wrote:
Actually, the Valkyrie was not only nerfed twice, but thrice. It can no longer

-keep units from shooting the next turn by charging them
-block paths for non-flyers
-bring infantry units into close range on turn one, i.e. for hot-shot lasguns, meltas, grenades or a higher chance of successfully charging

This is so sad. I've always taken at least one, and they alway had their use, but now all they do is their own shooting, which is poor. It's really hard for me to justify taking one now, which kinda ruins my mechanized force style-wise.



edit: ninja'd

Can’t Valks still go into hover mode and engage in melee? They lose the fly and the minimum move, so they don’t follow aircraft rules then, do they?

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Maxurugi wrote:
Actually, the Valkyrie was not only nerfed twice, but thrice. It can no longer

-keep units from shooting the next turn by charging them
-block paths for non-flyers
-bring infantry units into close range on turn one, i.e. for hot-shot lasguns, meltas, grenades or a higher chance of successfully charging

This is so sad. I've always taken at least one, and they alway had their use, but now all they do is their own shooting, which is poor. It's really hard for me to justify taking one now, which kinda ruins my mechanized force style-wise.



edit: ninja'd

Can’t Valks still go into hover mode and engage in melee? They lose the fly and the minimum move, so they don’t follow aircraft rules then, do they?

Correct. As pointed out below hovering doesn't remove the AIRCRAFT keyword. I like how GW were totally insisting everything would be bespoke in 8th and then instantly went back to botching universal special rules/keywords. By rights they should have at least errata'd the AIRCRAFT keyword onto the datasheets and have a rule in the rulebook anchored to that ala FLY.

I don't think going into hover mode removes the aircraft keyword.

 Maxurugi wrote:
I don't think going into hover mode removes the aircraft keyword.

Agreed.

"If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move
characteristic (or if it has a damage table on
its datasheet that includes any minimum Move
characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword."

Since Valks have a damage table with a Min Move 20-60" range it does have the AIRCRAFT keyword.

 Dynas wrote:

 Maxurugi wrote:
I don't think going into hover mode removes the aircraft keyword.

Agreed.

"If a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move
characteristic (or if it has a damage table on
its datasheet that includes any minimum Move
characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword."

Since Valks have a damage table with a Min Move 20-60" range it does have the AIRCRAFT keyword.

But Valks still get to engage in melee per hover mode, right?

Flyers will still block movement well enough though.

If the flyer is 1” away from the unit, the unit needs (just talking 1 model here, never mind the other 4-9 spread out behind it) a 6.6” move to be able to clear the flyers base legally. (1” to get into “base to base”, 3.6” to get across the base, 1” to get the front of the base 1” away from the flyer and another 1” to get the back of the 25mm base 1” away from the flyer).

Units spread out in anything, but a line, will practically never be able to move “under” a flyer. And that’s before you consider the flyer will now just park 2” away from the unit instead of 1”. The only thing this really helps now is Knights and Vehicles.

 Apple Peel wrote:

But Valks still get to engage in melee per hover mode, right?

Of course, but it's not like they're gonna achieve something, with their three attacks hitting on a 6 and no ap.

 Maxurugi wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

But Valks still get to engage in melee per hover mode, right?

Of course, but it's not like they're gonna achieve something, with their three attacks hitting on a 6 and no ap.

Still make tanks have to fall back out.

Kdash wrote:
Flyers will still block movement well enough though.

If the flyer is 1” away from the unit, the unit needs (just talking 1 model here, never mind the other 4-9 spread out behind it) a 6.6” move to be able to clear the flyers base legally. (1” to get into “base to base”, 3.6” to get across the base, 1” to get the front of the base 1” away from the flyer and another 1” to get the back of the 25mm base 1” away from the flyer).

Units spread out in anything, but a line, will practically never be able to move “under” a flyer. And that’s before you consider the flyer will now just park 2” away from the unit instead of 1”. The only thing this really helps now is Knights and Vehicles.

Yeah in practice that isn't as big effect as might be thought. Knights are big benefitters(surprise surprise...). Orks same as always be blocked.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Still make tanks have to fall back out.

No, tanks charged by a valkyrie literally do "not have to fall back in order to move". If they do so, they aren't within 1" of enemy models anymore and since they didn't fall back, there's nothing preventing them from shooting.

 Maxurugi wrote:
Actually, the Valkyrie was not only nerfed twice, but thrice. It can no longer

-keep units from shooting the next turn by charging them
-block paths for non-flyers
-bring infantry units into close range on turn one, i.e. for hot-shot lasguns, meltas, grenades or a higher chance of successfully charging

This is so sad. I've always taken at least one, and they alway had their use, but now all they do is their own shooting, which is poor. It's really hard for me to justify taking one now, which kinda ruins my mechanized force style-wise.



edit: ninja'd

To be fair, points one and two make absolutely no sense from a logic standpoint, so having them changed was a good thing. A plane shouldn't be blocking a charge from infantry on the ground and something like a valkyrie really shouldn't be assaulting ground targets. It sucks from a tactical viewpoint but this is usually the kind of weird, wonky game rule that people are happy to see addressed. They were good changes, even if it screwed us in the process. I just bought 2k of aircraft for guard, trust me I feel your pain there. They really shouldn't even be blocking models from moving where their base is, but I understand why that needs to be there from a game standpoint.

As for point 3, I do agree there. It really sucks when so many of the weapons that want to use valks desperately need to be within 9-6" of their target. I was looking forward to demo SWS teams airdropped in but that's not gonna work near as well now. And that's completely ignoring the middle finger stormtroopers got.

Also I'm not sure how many players here would've done something like this, but there was a 4th "Nerf" if you will in how wobbly model syndrome was addressed. Aka if the base cannot physically fit there that's not an excuse to say "wobbly model" and put it there anyways. So for example, if your valks base couldn't fit on top of a bastion, it can't actually be placed up there, regardless of the fact that it's flying and wouldn't be phased at all. That one bugs me way more but ultimately probably helps guard, since most people I saw do stuff like this were Tau or eldar with all the skimmers and flying suits they have. Really this just emphasize how airplanes should've only ever been an "off table" thing you called in using observers or something. They just have a really hard time fitting onto the typical 40k table.

What are people doing to handle daemon hordes and specifically plague bearers.

I was tempted to take 3 mortar teams and 2 wyverns to thin them out but not sure if the -1 and -2 takes its toll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maxurugi wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Still make tanks have to fall back out.

No, tanks charged by a valkyrie literally do "not have to fall back in order to move". If they do so, they aren't within 1" of enemy models anymore and since they didn't fall back, there's nothing preventing them from shooting.

Can you clarify? If the Valkyrie in hover mode charged a tank and was within 1", why would the tank not need to fall back in its next turn unless it wanted to remain in close combat?

 Smirrors wrote:
What are people doing to handle daemon hordes and specifically plague bearers.

I was tempted to take 3 mortar teams and 2 wyverns to thin them out but not sure if the -1 and -2 takes its toll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Maxurugi wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Still make tanks have to fall back out.

No, tanks charged by a valkyrie literally do "not have to fall back in order to move". If they do so, they aren't within 1" of enemy models anymore and since they didn't fall back, there's nothing preventing them from shooting.

Can you clarify? If the Valkyrie in hover mode charged a tank and was within 1", why would the tank not need to fall back in its next turn unless it wanted to remain in close combat?

Either I misread th first time, or GW didn’t put the vehicles with the hover jet rule still count as aircraft clarification in the big FAQ, but the explanation document instead. I think they fixed it.

What are people doing to handle daemon hordes and specifically plague bearers.

I was tempted to take 3 mortar teams and 2 wyverns to thin them out but not sure if the -1 and -2 takes its toll.

-1 to hit is a huge deal, and -2 to hit is worse (they can get this on one unit per turn with a spell). Cadians help mitigate this with overlapping fields of fire, plus relic of lost cadia. A cadian mortar firebase with 'overlapping fields' and using the relic of lost cadia will put down a few for sure.

Probably worth having a punisher tank commander or a vulture gunship in the list just to pop the 'vengeance for cadia' strat on every turn. If you don't have one those, try and get a 20-man consolidated infantry squad in FRFSRF range and use VFC on them instead. A VFC vulture kills around 14 plaguebearers per turn at -1 to hit, the punisher tank commander is similar. The combined squad with FRFSRF manages about 11.

A catachan infantry blob with straken and a priest can also dish out the pain. If they charge you to stop a 10-man infantry squad firing, you can use 'fix bayonets' to attack them in your next movement phase, with potentially up to 32 attacks for a single infantry squad . If the stars align you could use 'consolidate squads' to make that 10 man squad they tri-pointed and make it into 20-man. Then with straken, a priest and 'fix bayonets' the unit will dish out a theoretical 128 S4 attacks from fighting in both the shooting and fight phase. That should kill a few.

How would people run a single baneblade chassis these days? Might be a bit more viable since the castellan caught some nerfs.

I figure two astropaths for barrier and nightshroud are no brainers.

Regiment tactics: vostroyan might be nice for the strat and range, catachan for multi shot guns with harker giving RR1s, cadian for the strat and RR1s, tallarn for outflank.

Other support: maybe tech priest to repair wounds, maybe Trojan for RR hits. Salamander sounds like a waste of points...

Which chassis? I'm liking the baneblade, shadowsword, and stormlord

Sponsors: No idea! Are they a waste of points or good value or just an average investment

Anyone have any tricks, favorite ways to run them or good experiences?

 DoomMouse wrote:
How would people run a single baneblade chassis these days? Might be a bit more viable since the castellan caught some nerfs.

I figure two astropaths for barrier and nightshroud are no brainers.

Regiment tactics: vostroyan might be nice for the strat and range, catachan for multi shot guns with harker giving RR1s, cadian for the strat and RR1s, tallarn for outflank.

Other support: maybe tech priest to repair wounds, maybe Trojan for RR hits. Salamander sounds like a waste of points...

Which chassis? I'm liking the baneblade, shadowsword, and stormlord

Sponsors: No idea! Are they a waste of points or good value or just an average investment

Anyone have any tricks, favorite ways to run them or good experiences?

I have always loved my stormlord, two psykers are a must. In my opinion vostroyan is best, as it allows you to take it in a superheavy auxiliary detachment, and the strat is ace. Make sure to charge with a baneblade chassis often, as it is nice in melee

Do you peeps think the Salamander Command Vehicle and Trojan Support Vehicle are worth it? 1+ to hit and Re-roll 1s respectively to a single vehicle are somewhat good but about 100Pts for each is a fair bit to ask.

Though it can be used to stack with the Tempustus trait. Especially if you put it on a super heavy or baslisk of a custom regiment to proc extra shots on a 5+

I think Trojan has its use only with things like Punisher, Stormlord or Macharius Vulcan or a Catachan vehicle in general. Otherwise, it's too expensive for what it does.

cody.d. wrote:

Though it can be used to stack with the Tempustus trait. Especially if you put it on a super heavy or baslisk of a custom regiment to proc extra shots on a 5+

Just to clarify, are you saying that super heavies/ basilisks can get the militarum tempestus: storm trooper doctrine for exploding shots? If so, that wouldn't work out for either unit.

ghenghis_Ken wrote:

cody.d. wrote:

Though it can be used to stack with the Tempustus trait. Especially if you put it on a super heavy or baslisk of a custom regiment to proc extra shots on a 5+

Just to clarify, are you saying that super heavies/ basilisks can get the militarum tempestus: storm trooper doctrine for exploding shots? If so, that wouldn't work out for either unit.

They can’t get the MT keyword, but people give their custom regiments the Stormtroopers doctrine. Don’t know if it’s officially allowed, though.

 Apple Peel wrote:
Don’t know if it’s officially allowed, though.

Why wouldn't it be allowed? The rules are perfectly clear, you can give the "storm troopers" doctrine to a custom regiment but will not have the MT keyword/relics/stratagems (and in fact any MT units in your detachment will lose their doctrine!). And it's not like you're really breaking the game by doing it, mathematically the ability is almost identical (same average, different distribution of outcomes) to the Cadian doctrine in effect and half range vs. not moving are fairly comparable requirements. The only time you're really gaining anything is if you're using +1 to hit modifiers to get more 6+ results, but even then it's questionable if you're really getting more than you could do with a different combination of buffs and doctrine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cody.d. wrote:
Do you peeps think the Salamander Command Vehicle and Trojan Support Vehicle are worth it? 1+ to hit and Re-roll 1s respectively to a single vehicle are somewhat good but about 100Pts for each is a fair bit to ask.

Though it can be used to stack with the Tempustus trait. Especially if you put it on a super heavy or baslisk of a custom regiment to proc extra shots on a 5+

They're only good if you're buffing a LoW. The cost of the buff is just too expensive to justify on anything else and you're better off taking a second copy of the unit instead of trying to buff it. You only see a benefit if you put 500+ points worth of firepower into a single unit to receive the buff, in which case it becomes a pretty good trade. You add 50% more firepower for 20% more points, which is somewhat better than the "fair" price for that increase.

How does it give you +50% firepower? Thought it was just +1 to hit. Does it let you reroll ones too?

 DoomMouse wrote:
How does it give you +50% firepower? Thought it was just +1 to hit. Does it let you reroll ones too?

I was referring to the Trojan. The Salamander is giving you 33% more firepower, making it a lot more questionable.

ay yo people, a question on Bullgryns.

grenadier gauntlets and slab shields or battle mauls and suppression shields?

please reply, im converting up some ogres and i want to know how to equip them best.

 STG wrote:
ay yo people, a question on Bullgryns.

grenadier gauntlets and slab shields or battle mauls and suppression shields?

please reply, im converting up some ogres and i want to know how to equip them best.

I would give them all mauls and then mix around the shields. This will give you a good melee unit that can handle both high and low AP attacks.

 Apple Peel wrote:

ghenghis_Ken wrote:

cody.d. wrote:

Though it can be used to stack with the Tempustus trait. Especially if you put it on a super heavy or baslisk of a custom regiment to proc extra shots on a 5+

Just to clarify, are you saying that super heavies/ basilisks can get the militarum tempestus: storm trooper doctrine for exploding shots? If so, that wouldn't work out for either unit.

They can’t get the MT keyword, but people give their custom regiments the Stormtroopers doctrine. Don’t know if it’s officially allowed, though.

Agreed. And its a pretty clear reading of the rules that allows you to do that, so it seems as official as any custom chapter or craftworld.

If your chosen regiment does not have
an associated Regimental Doctrine, you
may pick the doctrine that you feel best
represents your army. For example, as your
army of Ventrillian Nobles does not have
an associated Regimental Doctrine, you
can decide that the Vostroyan Heirloom
Weapons doctrine best suits these wealthy and
well-equipped fighters.

The Militarum Tempestus: Storm Troopers doctrine is listed on the following page between Tallarn and Mordian. So my custom regiment, "Nova Roma," can therefore choose it if I feel it "best represents my army." But they're still Regiment <Nova Roma> and not <Militarum Tempestus>

Page 132 says you do not benefit from the storm troopers doctrine unless every unit from the detatchment is from the military tempestus.

Page 3 of the vigilus defiant designers commentary says that a military tempestus detachment is one with the storm troopers doctrine, ie all from the military tempestus.

It doesn't make much lore sense as scions actually operate tauroxes but crewing basilisks and baneblades seems like quite the stretch. And basilisk generally aren't advancing and "storming" much either

ghenghis_Ken wrote:
Page 132 says you do not benefit from the storm troopers doctrine unless every unit from the detatchment is from the military tempestus.

Page 3 of the vigilus defiant designers commentary says that a military tempestus detachment is one with the storm troopers doctrine, ie all from the military tempestus.

It doesn't make much lore sense as scions actually operate tauroxes but crewing basilisks and baneblades seems like quite the stretch. And basilisk generally aren't advancing and "storming" much either

Am I right that this doesn't apply to Auxilia units? I can throw Bullgryns in with a Tempestus Battalion without disrupting Stormtroopers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 STG wrote:
ay yo people, a question on Bullgryns.

grenadier gauntlets and slab shields or battle mauls and suppression shields?

please reply, im converting up some ogres and i want to know how to equip them best.

Mauls for sure.. maybe all slab shields if you think you can get them across the board, otherwise a mix. 2 to 1 slab shield to brute shield seems workable.

ghenghis_Ken wrote:
Page 132 says you do not benefit from the storm troopers doctrine unless every unit from the detatchment is from the military tempestus.

No it doesn't. It says that MT units do not gain a doctrine unless the entire detachment is MT, it says nothing about non-MT benefiting from the "storm troopers" doctrine. If you create a custom regiment using the "storm troopers" doctrine you are not MT and nothing in that section applies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ghenghis_Ken wrote:
It doesn't make much lore sense as scions actually operate tauroxes but crewing basilisks and baneblades seems like quite the stretch.

It makes perfect sense because they aren't Militarius™ Trademarkus™ $cions™ crewing those units. It's soldiers from a standard regiment whose tactics are best represented by adding additional to-hit rolls on 6s at half range. That's why they don't have the Militarius™ Trademarkus™ stratagems or relics or special order or keyword.