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.

Blightstar wrote:
If you think being guard is being an underdog then you missed 5th edition .

Eh, the whole leafblower thing was an overblown gimmick. Wound allocation Paladins was just brokenly powerful when compared. I still have nightmares about that stupid rule. Fix wound allocation and 5th would probably have been the best edition by far.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Stuxseth wrote:

WatcherZero wrote:

It wasn't the nerf bat some were fearing

That's for sure...

The thing is, this thread started before 8th hit, when Guard were kind of a poor army. A lot of the old school Guard players have an underdog mentality, which persists to this day. Hell, Guard is a popular faction partially because they are the galaxy's underdog. Being powerful is new to some of us oldies. (-:

I don't know about that...I started playing in 5th when we saw the mighty leaf blower squash every list out there. Then 6th dropped and things weren't as rosy. Then 7th hit and my IG did almost nothing but collect dust or occasionally be cheap troops in an allied detachment. But boy, 5th was awesome or at least really good for IG. We've just had to put up with around 5 years of garbage compared to so many other armies...

Edit: Wow so while I was typing this up a bunch of us were pining for the leaf blower apparently

Did no one else find leafblower to be pretty poor? It hit the meta like a brick but was pretty easy to adapt to, at least where I played. It was very reliant on getting the first turn, some games turned into more of a coin flip.

WatcherZero wrote:

ajax_xaja wrote:

2) Can a Militarum Tempestus Regiment take Auxilia/Flyers without having their regimental doctrine affected? There's some weird wording on page 132 about "Tempestus only Get a doctrine if every unit is Tempestus" and the auxilla section below stating exceptions. RAI seems to be obvious, but the RAW is wonky.

2. As people currently understand the rules as written and until its FAQ'd its a bit dodgy, an original Tempestus regiment has to be pure and cant have any non Tempestus unit, however you can make up your own regiment and assign them any of the doctrines which doesn't have the same limitation, and assign them the Tempestus doctrine. I think the rule intent was that they would be pure limited to the Scion units and you might have a detachment of them in your army with their doctrine, not field an entire army of that regiment with tanks and Auxillaries and other stuff.

Hm, not sure this would work. The scions would not receive the Regimental Bonus because they don't have keyword <Regiment>. Seems like a pretty careless mistake, but that's nothing new for the GW ruleset I suppose.

Strange that they wouldn't consider players who take scions only, especially since they've had their own codex/books before.

 Trickstick wrote:
Did no one else find leafblower to be pretty poor? It hit the meta like a brick but was pretty easy to adapt to, at least where I played. It was very reliant on getting the first turn, some games turned into more of a coin flip.

I played for few hundred games and I pretty much mowed everything down and won some tournaments too. Basic meltachimvet/vendetta/hydra/manticore-build. Only stuff like psycan-rifleman GK could give me rough ride.

Never felt that paladins were a problem but then again, I was swimming in meltaguns.

Scions do have <REGIMENT>. 'Militarum Tempestus' is their regiment. The start of the army list even says that "Units with the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword treat this as their <REGIMENT> keyword in all respects..."

And I also don't see why Advisors and Auxilla prevent Scions from getting their regimental doctrine -- the text about all units needing MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is saying basically the same thing as the text about every other regimental doctrine's requirement. The point of the "Militarum Tempestus" section is to make clear that (1) you can include Scions in an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment and still get a regimental doctrine for the other units in that detachment, but (2) the Scions themselves don't get a doctrine unless they're the only regiment in the detachment.

Hello.

Could someone with a Facebook account ask GW the question about "Send in the next wave" stratagem ? Does it needs you to put aside reinforcement points on list writing level ?
As a Valhallan player, I hope not, of course. I feel this stratagem is essential to make Valhallan stand as interesting among other regiments. If unusable, they would lose a lot of their appeal.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Scions do have <REGIMENT>. 'Militarum Tempestus' is their regiment. The start of the army list even says that "Units with the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword treat this as their <REGIMENT> keyword in all respects..."

And I also don't see why Advisors and Auxilla prevent Scions from getting their regimental doctrine -- the text about all units needing MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is saying basically the same thing as the text about every other regimental doctrine's requirement. The point of the "Militarum Tempestus" section is to make clear that (1) you can include Scions in an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment and still get a regimental doctrine for the other units in that detachment, but (2) the Scions themselves don't get a doctrine unless they're the only regiment in the detachment.

It treats them as separate to normal AM regiments. Relevant bits anyway

If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental doctrine you may pick the doctrine that you feel best suits your army.

Militarum Tempestus units can be included in an Astra Militarum detachment without preventing other units in that detachment from gaining a regimental doctrine. Note however that Militarum Tempestus units do not benefit from any regimental doctrine unless every unit in that detachment is Militarum Tempestus in which case they gain the Storm Troopers doctrine.

The units below can be included in an Astra Militarum detachment without preventing other units in that detachment from gaining a regimental doctrine.

Just a heads-up on bullgryn slabshields - the wording that it gives a +2 to all saves in particular: The german translation of the codex specifically says its just armour saves. This means that its not nearly as cut-and-dry as people might think reading the english version when it comes to applying that bonus to invulnerable saves.
At thi spoint, there would be two options:
1) The translation team was wrong and misinterpreted the rule (which is possible, translations have sucked lately)
2) The intent was for it to only affect armour saves and the translation accounts for that, while the rules team slipped up.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Possibly ask a question regarding this on FB?
(I dont have an account, and dont want one either... <.< )

WatcherZero wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Scions do have <REGIMENT>. 'Militarum Tempestus' is their regiment. The start of the army list even says that "Units with the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword treat this as their <REGIMENT> keyword in all respects..."

And I also don't see why Advisors and Auxilla prevent Scions from getting their regimental doctrine -- the text about all units needing MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is saying basically the same thing as the text about every other regimental doctrine's requirement. The point of the "Militarum Tempestus" section is to make clear that (1) you can include Scions in an ASTRA MILITARUM detachment and still get a regimental doctrine for the other units in that detachment, but (2) the Scions themselves don't get a doctrine unless they're the only regiment in the detachment.

It treats them as separate to normal AM regiments. Relevant bits anyway

If your chosen regiment does not have an associated Regimental doctrine you may pick the doctrine that you feel best suits your army.

Militarum Tempestus units can be included in an Astra Militarum detachment without preventing other units in that detachment from gaining a regimental doctrine. Note however that Militarum Tempestus units do not benefit from any regimental doctrine unless every unit in that detachment is Militarum Tempestus in which case they gain the Storm Troopers doctrine.

The units below can be included in an Astra Militarum detachment without preventing other units in that detachment from gaining a regimental doctrine.

Yes, I'm aware. My post acknowledges that, even -- I point out that this text is saying essentially the same thing as the text about how regular regiments receive doctrines. The Militarum Tempestus rules say that all units in the detachment must be from the Militarum Tempestus to get their regimental doctrine, just like the regular Regimental Doctrines rules say that all units in the detachment must be from the same regiment to get a regimental doctrine. Then the Advisors and Auxilla rules say that certain units don't prevent others from getting a doctrine. Specific overrides general. The only really interesting difference between the rules for regular regiments and Scions is that the regular rules have a parenthetical heads-up about the upcoming exceptions, but obviously this has no rules significance -- you can see this by pretending that the parenthetical isn't there and asking whether anything changes.

I think its a case of written in English then translated, other languages aren't considered when writing the English wording.

 Tyr13 wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Possibly ask a question regarding this on FB?
(I dont have an account, and dont want one either... <.< )

I think it is obviously a mistake that will get FAQed. Why would a large piece of armour improve your invulnerable save? It has no technological or magical properties at all, which is where most invulnerable saves come from. I would definitely file it under "I can't really stop you using this rule, but I would suggest not converting/purchasing on the basis of it".

Blightstar wrote:
If you think being guard is being an underdog then you missed 5th edition .

I've been playing since the beginning of 3rd and the only times apart from now that Guard haven't been trash tier were the 3rd edition index in the back of the rulebook (which didn't last very long) and 5th edition. I'm glad that I finally get to know what Eldar players have felt like over most of the last couple of decades.

Dionysodorus wrote:


Yes, I'm aware. My post acknowledges that, even -- I point out that this text is saying essentially the same thing as the text about how regular regiments receive doctrines. The Militarum Tempestus rules say that all units in the detachment must be from the Militarum Tempestus to get their regimental doctrine, just like the regular Regimental Doctrines rules say that all units in the detachment must be from the same regiment to get a regimental doctrine. Then the Advisors and Auxilla rules say that certain units don't prevent others from getting a doctrine. Specific overrides general. The only really interesting difference between the rules for regular regiments and Scions is that the regular rules have a parenthetical heads-up about the upcoming exceptions, but obviously this has no rules significance -- you can see this by pretending that the parenthetical isn't there and asking whether anything changes.

If it was the same meaning that its just Regiment then they wouldn't need two separate paragraphs to say the same thing twice and it also lacks the parenthesis section from <Regiment> explanation.

"Every unit in the detachment (apart from the exceptions noted) is from the same regiment".
"Every unit in the detachment is from Militarum Tempestus"

 tuebor wrote:
...3rd edition index in the back of the rulebook (which didn't last very long)

Was that when they could shoot before the game started? I only got into Guard during their 1st 3rd ed codex. Was ok, although I really liked the 3.5ed version and that is when I made them my primary army and never looked back. Something about everything in your army having infiltrate was kinda fun.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Tyr13 wrote:
Anyone have any thoughts on this? Possibly ask a question regarding this on FB?
(I dont have an account, and dont want one either... <.< )

I think it is obviously a mistake that will get FAQed. Why would a large piece of armour improve your invulnerable save? It has no technological or magical properties at all, which is where most invulnerable saves come from. I would definitely file it under "I can't really stop you using this rule, but I would suggest not converting/purchasing on the basis of it".

Possibly the same reason the other kind of Bullgryn shield gives an invulnerable save? An invulnerable save isn't always magic in 40k.

WatcherZero wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:


Yes, I'm aware. My post acknowledges that, even -- I point out that this text is saying essentially the same thing as the text about how regular regiments receive doctrines. The Militarum Tempestus rules say that all units in the detachment must be from the Militarum Tempestus to get their regimental doctrine, just like the regular Regimental Doctrines rules say that all units in the detachment must be from the same regiment to get a regimental doctrine. Then the Advisors and Auxilla rules say that certain units don't prevent others from getting a doctrine. Specific overrides general. The only really interesting difference between the rules for regular regiments and Scions is that the regular rules have a parenthetical heads-up about the upcoming exceptions, but obviously this has no rules significance -- you can see this by pretending that the parenthetical isn't there and asking whether anything changes.

If it was the same meaning that its just Regiment then they wouldn't need two separate paragraphs to say the same thing twice and it also lacks the parenthesis section from <Regiment> explanation.

"Every unit in the detachment (apart from the exceptions noted) is from the same regiment".
"Every unit in the detachment is from Militarum Tempestus"

But it obviously doesn't have the same meaning, it just isn't different in the way you think it is. I explained what that section is saying in my earlier post. You're reading far too much into the absence of a parenthetical heads-up about a later section of rules when the obvious explanation for this is just that the writer felt like the reader had already been made aware of the later section and so didn't want to repeat himself. Again, you can easily see that the parenthetical isn't actually doing anything by asking what changes if you delete it.

Anyone have further experience with Leman Russes?

Executioners no longer impload and re-roll ones are easier to come by.

Demolishers now get d6 shots at 5-strong units, so should be able to target most infantry (at least for the first round) at full power.

Punishers do seem good, decent quality of quantity now. Also better returns on buffs.

Battlecannons are the comprise, good standalone, excellent range.

Sponsons? I'm always the opinion that, at least until you've filled a health detachment or two (dare I say.. Battalion), it's always better to field more units than upgrade existing ones.

Just curious on peoples thoughts.

 Trickstick wrote:

 tuebor wrote:
...3rd edition index in the back of the rulebook (which didn't last very long)

Was that when they could shoot before the game started? I only got into Guard during their 1st 3rd ed codex. Was ok, although I really liked the 3.5ed version and that is when I made them my primary army and never looked back. Something about everything in your army having infiltrate was kinda fun.

Shooting before the game started was a 2nd edition thing, the index back then had severely undercosted heavy weapons teams, to the point where you could nearly table some armies in a turn. This was the infamous SAFH, or the Shooty Army from Hell. Given that the most common tactic then was the Rhino rush, the ludicrous amount of lascannons you could fit into a list was a pretty hard counter to the meta.

I'm pretty sure the all-infiltrating list was the 2nd one from 3rd edition, post Eye of Terror. The one that took my Griffon's away from me

 argonak wrote:
Possibly the same reason the other kind of Bullgryn shield gives an invulnerable save?

I just assumed they were some sort of force field shield but now I check can't see a mention of it. I guess they are parrying bucklers, and they grant an invulnerable in the same way that dodge does.

Razerous wrote:
Anyone have further experience with Leman Russes?

Executioners no longer impload and re-roll ones are easier to come by.

Demolishers now get d6 shots at 5-strong units, so should be able to target most infantry (at least for the first round) at full power.

Punishers do seem good, decent quality of quantity now. Also better returns on buffs.

Battlecannons are the comprise, good standalone, excellent range.

Sponsons? I'm always the opinion that, at least until you've filled a health detachment or two (dare I say.. Battalion), it's always better to field more units than upgrade existing ones.

Just curious on peoples thoughts.

Every time a new codex comes out, I spend most of my time thinking about and testing Russ weapon combinations. I've gone through a lot over the years, it is always a bit of a minefield. The biggest change when 8th came along, which changed all of my previous thinking, is free split fire with all units. Previously, I matched the roles of all of the guns so they could do well against a single target. This led to bolter punishers, las/melta exterminators and the like. Now, you are much better mixing gun roles. You put all of your AT on one tank and AP on another, the enemy can kill the one you need. Split if over two and they can't. Also, having AT weapons on different units allows you to fire them individually at armoured targets, helping to prevent overkill. Also, the new doctrines have added another layer of depth to the situation.

Cadians like to sit still and have blast turrets ( due to their unique order). Because they stay still the 24" range weapons can be a bit of a liability. Also, the reroll 1s make plasma very tempting. So for them I would go battlecannon or executioner with plasma sponsons and bolter/lascannon hull mount.

Catachans, which give a benefit to blasts, makes those guns very tempting. Sitting still they are similar to Cadians, although they benefit from mounting flamers if they want to move. That -1 to hit when moving is bypassed by flamers, making them a good choice for a mobile tank.

Tallarn are the ones that can use the short range weapons the best, either outflanking or move-shooting with their order. They are the best to use melta sponsons, as getting within 12" is easiest for them and they get to use full BS. They also have an easier time getting into range with flamers, although they are not as good as they can't reroll number of shots. You can also get a flamer russ, outflank it and order the tank within range, which is nice.

Basically, you have to think about what you need the tank to do, what special rules it has and what buffs you can give it. Although you can ignore rules you have in some situations (like a Tallarn flamer not needing the "ignore -1 for moving rule"), it is usually best to play to your strengths. There are a few things that we can say should be avoided though:

- Don't plan to move a plasma cannon if you are not Tallarn. The -1 to hit can melt you. Of course, sometimes you have to. Just don't make it a key part of your plan.
- Vanquishers are just bad. I wish they weren't, as my tank commander is a lovely FW vanquisher. I will still use it but it is really a sub-optimal choice.
- Eradicators and exterminators also seem like bad options. They do have things they are good at but overall hardly seem worth it.
- Demolishers are expensive. They are pretty good but you have to pay for them, it may be worth going for something cheaper.

As for sponsons, I love them. I would always take them unless I was planning to move all of the time with a non-Tallarn tank but didn't want flamers. Spending just 16pts on a 150pt Russ gives it a decent increase in firepower. I think of it like special weapons. You wouldn't take a squad with 2 out of 3 weapons unless it was for a very specific reason. Now if I had to say the variants that I am going to try myself? As I am taking Tallarn, I will probably go lascannon/melta punishers and see how that does. Cheap gun that is very good against infantry, strong AT firepower from the secondaries. Short range but that is mitigated by being Tallarn. I'm also tempted by flamer demolishers outflanking with a las/melt punisher commander to order them.

Note: I have used this 3++ blog post for the maths of turret weapons. It is out of date, being made for 8th edition's release, but still works to compare the guns against eachother. As all of the Russ's turrets can now double fire, they stay the same relative to one another. Also, the demolisher's gun changes slightly but it doesn;t really affect the numbers.

I'm a bit sleepy and started to ramble at certain point but I think I got my key points across. Russ weapons has probably been one of my most thought about topics in my time with 40k. There are so many things to think about, especially with 8th. It really comes down to what you want the tanks to do nd how they are going to be supported.

Edit: A small addendum about extra options. Track guards, dozers and augers all seem pointless. A 2pt storm bolter is nice, if you want to move. For gunline I guess a stubber is ok if you have the points. HK missiles I don't know about. They are pretty cheap but I have only ever used them on outflanking scout sentinels back in 5th.

The stygies vanquisher is ok but my biggest complaint about vanquishers in general is the fact it is only str 8 and really should have reroll to wound vs vehicles and monstrous creatures. This would make it stand out from all other leman russes for its role as a monster hunter.

The standard version lacks all the extra to hit bonuses of stygies but both versions lack the wounding potential needed on a low rate of fire weapon.

1) Am I right in reading that I can't take Valkyries in a Militarum Tempestus list without losing their regimental doctrines?

2) It looks like I can use the 'Take Cover" strategem on a non-AM unit so long as I have an AM detachment in my army. Am I reading that wrong?

3) if I want to run this as a splash in for my army, what regiment would you recommend?

4) Is that a bad way to deliver a bunch of meltaguns (Officer, CS, and SWS in the valkerie)? Should I just take scions instead?

KestrelM1 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:
I don't know if you know this, but a unit can only benefit from one order, so using the CP (which you'll have plenty of) means you can use a different order. Works amazingly well with your plasma concept so you can reroll wounds while protecting yourself from overheating. It's been working really well for me, so maybe avoid being negative and just try it out instead!

Glad to hear it's been going well for you! Which configuration of transport have you been finding effective?

Mostly Chimeras, but I subbed them for Tauroxes last game and I think I've found my new love. The caveat is including the vox or running a command Chimera nearby for orders, but unless you hit hard with something dangerous, like tons of plasma, you need to conserve the CP. I've found they've been a fantastic way to increase the mobility, survivability, and damage from infantry squads, which have been the real winners for me. If the transport is carrying something with ridiculous damage potential, it gets targeted early and with things the AP -1 rule doesn't help with. When my dangerous stuff draws the fire (and is far more resilient), the troops can hit the objectives and position the transport to help block los.

Valkyries I haven't tried yet, which is a bummer because they seem so good for this. I just can't sub Chimeras for them no matter what my opponents agree to. Doesn't feel right lol

Full disclosure: we are not tournament level players, and while competitive, we sometimes focus on fluffy lists over super competitive, but this has been pretty successful due to the clear split of purpose. They're mobile objective cappers with a pretty great threat range. I keep them cheap to add more and to focus on building up the options on the real dangerous units.

It's theory hammer for now, but with grinding advance, you can move a little bit. If you run them in a spearhead, I'd say go fireball, Tallarn with sponsons of choice, or go lean with turret and heavy bolter. Moving 5", shooting twice, and scoring all make them slow but durable options for midfield objectives. They can also charge as needed.

I like cadians with plasma, but they russes can tank some overheats now.

Cadians of course have pask, who is still a bargain compared to the basic commander. They also get better blasts as an order, which is real good with plasma sponsons.

 Polonius wrote:

Cadians of course have pask, who is still a bargain compared to the basic commander. They also get better blasts as an order, which is real good with plasma sponsons.

Cadian orders only affect turret-blasts but rerolls to 1's is very nice thing to have even then.

I'm quite enjoying the flexibility Cadia offers to run
Pask Punisher with Melta
Battle cannon with bolters
Executioner with plasma

I think it gives a good balance of Dakka, anti TEQ and anti tank/dreadnought. I agree the tank upgrades are mostly useless but I do think the Track Guards on my Pask may be useful when he has 24" weapons and will be focus fired a lot by opponents.

Next gen AM list of mine. Composition rules, no double same detachment, max 3 detachments, no more than 3 of same unit, all FAQ and future Chapter approved in use.

List is very much a work in progress and some things will change but it's the core where I'll build on.


Supreme Command (Cadia):
-Knight Commander Pask, Executioner, 3 Heavy Bolters, RELIC OF LOST CADIA
-Tank Commander, Executioner, 3 Heavy Bolters
-Tank Commander, Executioner, 3 Heavy Bolters
-Shadowsword, Volcano Cannon, 4 Lascannons, 5 Twin HB, Storm Bolter

Battallion (Cadia):
-Tempestor Prime, Tempestus Command Rod
-Company Commander, GRAND STRATEGIST, KUROV's AQUILA

-4 Militarum Tempestus Command Squad, 4 Plasma Guns

-29 Conscripts
-29 Conscripts
-5 Militarum Tempestus Scions, 2 Plasma Guns, 1 Plasma Pistol

-3 Heavy Weapon Teams, Mortars
-3 Heavy Weapon Teams, Mortars
-3 Heavy Weapon Teams, Mortars

Vanguard:

-Celestine

-Astropath, Laspistol
-Commissar, Boltgun
-Eversor Assassin
-Eversor Assassin

TOTAL 2000p


I'll probably drop one Mortar team so I can afford at least a couple PC sponsons for Pask. Other than that it's pretty solid. Executioner fits Cadia like a hand in a a glove due to 36" range (not need to move so they get free re-rolls to hit) and a random amount of shots (tank order for re-rolls). The aura relic on Pask for 1 CP is pretty sick. They can move once per game and still keep their re-rolls, and it's such a hard counter for all Chaos and Daemon armies that it's absurd.

Celestine's 6+ invulnerable bubble stacks with Take Cover and Psychic Barrier. 1+/4++ Shadowsword for the lolz.

 Therion wrote:
...no more than 3 of same unit...

That would screw over the list I'm writing. I want to fill out a brigade and was thinking of 6x Tallarn Infantry squads to make a light infantry screen. A limit on 3 infantry squads seems to be almost forcing you to use conscripts...

List looks intereting though. I am interested in trying Eversor assassins, as I have had the model for years. How do you use them? Just jump in and cause chaos?

Personally, with the addition of Relics and such, I'm looking forward to having interesting HQs that aren't Celestine.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Therion wrote:
...no more than 3 of same unit...

That would screw over the list I'm writing. I want to fill out a brigade and was thinking of 6x Tallarn Infantry squads to make a light infantry screen. A limit on 3 infantry squads seems to be almost forcing you to use conscripts...

List looks intereting though. I am interested in trying Eversor assassins, as I have had the model for years. How do you use them? Just jump in and cause chaos?

In the points spent per damage caused Eversors on the jump (pistol shot+charge) are the point for point (pound for pound) winner in damage against GEQ and Orks and super solid vs MEQ. In my list they're a backup plan since I've gone heavy on anti-tank, and Celestine and the two Eversors are a small alternate win condition. They can get in the face of an enemy that hangs back, or pre-emptively charge something that's coming to me, and do a damn good job at causing damage per buck.

Not to mention, I've tried to make all my armies hybrids of majority shooting minority assault for about 20 years. I just like to have options.