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.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm glad I can combine infantry squads now, even though it costs 1CP for every 20 I want to put together. Never liked conscripts as a unit so I'll likely just powerblob it up with regular infantry squads.

It is only once per turn though, like all stratagems. It is not designed to build an army around, just save the special weapons from depleted squads and lower the kill points you give away.

One thing I was thinking about was this: do you have to pick relics as part of your list, or as part of deployment? It says before the battle, but at what point is that? At what point do you use the +relic stratagem? Do you take one relic in your list, but can use the stratagem and pick another relic when deploying? Mainly, I am wondering this because if you know your opponent before you pick relics, it allows you to tailor your list for the enemy in an allowed way, not the "this list is for vehicles" way. For example, you could pick the lost Cadia relic against chaos, but opt for something like a different sword if not, or save the CP entirely.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm glad I can combine infantry squads now, even though it costs 1CP for every 20 I want to put together. Never liked conscripts as a unit so I'll likely just powerblob it up with regular infantry squads.

It is only once per turn though, like all stratagems. It is not designed to build an army around, just save the special weapons from depleted squads and lower the kill points you give away.

gak, right. Got excited. Bleh, I miss my powerblobs.

 Blacksails wrote:
gak, right. Got excited. Bleh, I miss my powerblobs.

What are you really losing by having 3x10 man squads these days? Commissars and priests are both auras now, so that isn't a problem. Orders can be but power blobs don't particularly need them to function. On the plus side, power swords are cheap now and you can get +1str Catachan fun. I would say melee Guard in in a really good place, even better than the old warrior weapons doctrine to give everyone lp/ccw.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
gak, right. Got excited. Bleh, I miss my powerblobs.

What are you really losing by having 3x10 man squads these days? Commissars and priests are both auras now, so that isn't a problem. Orders can be but power blobs don't particularly need them to function. On the plus side, power swords are cheap now and you can get +1str Catachan fun. I would say melee Guard in in a really good place, even better than the old warrior weapons doctrine to give everyone lp/ccw.

Yeah, all good points. Just have to adapt I suppose. Still living in the glory days of 5th.

I want melee Catachans to be viable but I'm not seeing it. I'm sure it'll be fun. But it's not going to be good. I've tested it out with my buddy and even with full commitment it's just not good.

You lose a bit of wound allocation, and the all-or-nothing of the charge. Since you now need to make x number of charges rather than just one, you run into the possibility of winding up with one out of how ever many squads making it, which could be unfortunate.

Honestly, I think you could make it work still with 1/turn. Turn 1, get 20, turn 2, get 30 (or, another 20). I'd be okay with 2x20 on a charge/countercharge, particularly since I've been making it work with a bunch of 10 man squads.

 Blacksails wrote:
Tallarn overall feels like one of the stronger regiments, especially with any amount of vehicles. Very mobile and lots of synergy. I may be a Mordian at heart, but I like my tanks and I like them functioning as vehicles not as bunkers, so I may be running my Mordians mostly as Tallarn when I run armoured.

I'm very interested to see how I can get Tallarns to work with the Genestealer elements of my GCult. I have no idea if it'll be too much mobile ambushy-ness, or if it'll synergize in a really strong way.

Pretty sure the combo between assault units ambushing and shooty tanks is going to synergize extremely well! Should be very fun to play!

During an unusually boring conference call, I did some hand calculations to figure out the impact of the catachan doctrine on various blasts.

We all know (or should know), that the reroll on a basic d6 turns the expected value from 3.5 (the straight average) to 4.25 (assuming you reroll everything under 4).

What about two dice, pick the highest, common on earthshakers. For them, the expected values is the sum of all 36 combinations (1,1..1,2...etc), but rerolling a single die in there changes those expcted values. to calculate that, for each combination, I created a table of six further options, based on the re-roll, and then added up the best result. So, for 1,2, the table would be 2,2,3,4,5,6; since if you roll a one on the re-roll, the best result is the two). While small, this reroll does boost the expected shots from 4.47 to 4.96, or roughly 4.5 to 5.

For two dice, add them together, I did something similar, although you can just add the high result of the initial pair to 3.5 when the low result is under 4. With the doctrine, the expected value jumps from 7 to 8.23, which is a huge jump, but unlike roll two dice take the highest, you get all of the benefit from the reroll.

I don't have the time to do three dice manually, nor the skills to automate it, but it would likely be an even bigger benefit, as more results would benefit from a reroll (as there are more dice, so more chances of 1-3), meaning that the increase will likely be smaller percentage wise, but even larger in absolute terms.

What does this mean? Simply put, it shows how dramatically this doctrine improves the fire power of vehicle blasts for catachans. For battle cannons and the like, you get 3/4 of an additional shot, which doesn't sound like much, but it's a 21.4% increase in overall firepower, which significantly overshadows the increase for re-rolling ones to hit (clocking in at 16.7% increase in firepower).

Now, this doesn't settle the debate, as there are other pros and cons to both. For starters, the Cadian doctrine boosts non-blasts as well, while requiring the tank to stand still. Finally, the cadian doctrine insulates the tank from plasma overheats a lot more.

Simply put, the catachan doctrine increases firepower regardless of if you are moving, while the cadian doctrine perversely rewards being static. The tallarn doctrine, the other big firepower doctrine, boosts the tanks relative firepower when moving, but adds nothing when static.

So... what? I think if you are not running blasts, you go tallarn or cadian, depending on how aggressive you want to be. (keep in mind that the punisher is arguably the most effective turret, giving catachans no real bonus). If you are not running sponsons and a blast turret (or like heavy flamer sponsons) go Catachan. If you love plasma, go cadian. If you want to run a lot of different things while moving, go tallarn.

Finally, don't underestimate the role of psychology. Taking cadian will always encourage you as a player to stay still, even if you shouldn't.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
I want melee Catachans to be viable but I'm not seeing it. I'm sure it'll be fun. But it's not going to be good. I've tested it out with my buddy and even with full commitment it's just not good.

Ogryns and Catachans are described as quite friendly in the fluff. A unit of Bullgryns would make a very strong spear-tip for an assault army. You also get Straken, one of the strongest fighters Guard has ver had.

 Polonius wrote:
During an unusually boring conference call, I did some hand calculations to figure out the impact of the catachan doctrine on various blasts.

What does this mean? Simply put, it shows how dramatically this doctrine improves the fire power of vehicle blasts for catachans.

Hence why when the codex hit, I immediately sought to fill out a Battalion (12 CP yum!) fielding Blast Leman Russes, artillery and triple hell founds.

Just thing in the change with the Hellhound; approx 8 hits.. if this had a Str 6 AP-1 D1 Assault 16, 16" range... folks would be going nuts. But effectively, that is what it is.

I've since shaved off a few vehicles to field the trifecta of Assassins (Evy, Cally & Lux) with an Inquisitor (Smite Slinger!) in their own mini detachment.

...I'm guessing I can do that, right, as the assassins are in a different detachment, I still retain regimental doctrines.

 Polonius wrote:

Spoiler:

During an unusually boring conference call, I did some hand calculations to figure out the impact of the catachan doctrine on various blasts.

We all know (or should know), that the reroll on a basic d6 turns the expected value from 3.5 (the straight average) to 4.25 (assuming you reroll everything under 4).

What about two dice, pick the highest, common on earthshakers. For them, the expected values is the sum of all 36 combinations (1,1..1,2...etc), but rerolling a single die in there changes those expcted values. to calculate that, for each combination, I created a table of six further options, based on the re-roll, and then added up the best result. So, for 1,2, the table would be 2,2,3,4,5,6; since if you roll a one on the re-roll, the best result is the two). While small, this reroll does boost the expected shots from 4.47 to 4.96, or roughly 4.5 to 5.

For two dice, add them together, I did something similar, although you can just add the high result of the initial pair to 3.5 when the low result is under 4. With the doctrine, the expected value jumps from 7 to 8.23, which is a huge jump, but unlike roll two dice take the highest, you get all of the benefit from the reroll.

I don't have the time to do three dice manually, nor the skills to automate it, but it would likely be an even bigger benefit, as more results would benefit from a reroll (as there are more dice, so more chances of 1-3), meaning that the increase will likely be smaller percentage wise, but even larger in absolute terms.

What does this mean? Simply put, it shows how dramatically this doctrine improves the fire power of vehicle blasts for catachans. For battle cannons and the like, you get 3/4 of an additional shot, which doesn't sound like much, but it's a 21.4% increase in overall firepower, which significantly overshadows the increase for re-rolling ones to hit (clocking in at 16.7% increase in firepower).

Now, this doesn't settle the debate, as there are other pros and cons to both. For starters, the Cadian doctrine boosts non-blasts as well, while requiring the tank to stand still. Finally, the cadian doctrine insulates the tank from plasma overheats a lot more.

Simply put, the catachan doctrine increases firepower regardless of if you are moving, while the cadian doctrine perversely rewards being static. The tallarn doctrine, the other big firepower doctrine, boosts the tanks relative firepower when moving, but adds nothing when static.

So... what? I think if you are not running blasts, you go tallarn or cadian, depending on how aggressive you want to be. (keep in mind that the punisher is arguably the most effective turret, giving catachans no real bonus). If you are not running sponsons and a blast turret (or like heavy flamer sponsons) go Catachan. If you love plasma, go cadian. If you want to run a lot of different things while moving, go tallarn.

Finally, don't underestimate the role of psychology. Taking cadian will always encourage you as a player to stay still, even if you shouldn't.

Great post and analysis.

I'm partial to the psychology point at the end. I've fallen into similar traps with my own playstyle before, and I know running as Tallarn would promote me to move more and ensure I'm playing to the objectives/mission rather than straight tabling.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
I want melee Catachans to be viable but I'm not seeing it. I'm sure it'll be fun. But it's not going to be good. I've tested it out with my buddy and even with full commitment it's just not good.

Ogryns and Catachans are described as quite friendly in the fluff. A unit of Bullgryns would make a very strong spear-tip for an assault army. You also get Straken, one of the strongest fighters Guard has ver had.

I used 3 Bullgryn, Straken, a Priest, Astropath, and 2 squads of guard. Bullgryn did well but I rolled like garbage so barely did anything. The guard ended up just turning into poxwalkers. Lol. Bullgryn are great. But Catachan guard aren't going to be anything strong just because of S4. FRFSRF within 12" is far more effective than getting 12 attacks at S4. Straken and a priest just dump more points into that 1 assault which is quite risky. It's totally fun. Just don't expect to win many games.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
gak, right. Got excited. Bleh, I miss my powerblobs.

What are you really losing by having 3x10 man squads these days? Commissars and priests are both auras now, so that isn't a problem. Orders can be but power blobs don't particularly need them to function. On the plus side, power swords are cheap now and you can get +1str Catachan fun. I would say melee Guard in in a really good place, even better than the old warrior weapons doctrine to give everyone lp/ccw.

plays way faster, only needs one order a turn for 30, and allows you to have more ablative wounds for your special/heavy weapons. If I could do a stratagem more than once a turn Id probably combine all my squads turn one and go from there, even if it spent half my command points.

Having to do 10+ infantry units individually is an absolute pain and I really miss blobbing up and moving them in groups of 3-5. Just speeds up moving and shooting quite a bit.

tag8833 wrote:
1) Am I right in reading that I can't take Valkyries in a Militarum Tempestus list without losing their regimental doctrines?

This was never responded to (a few pages back), and I had a similar questions about Bullgryns that didn't seem to receive any consensus. Gonna bump this topic a bit, because 1d4chan now states that ONLY scions, taurox primes, and tempestors are allowed in order to get regimental doctrines.

I want to say that this can't be the case, but would love for someone to clarify or get a solid answer from GW. Similarly, would this affect the ability to use tempestus stratagems as well?

Lastly, I was looking forward to buying/building out an all tempestus army at the beginning of 8th...but it's now established as being extremely cheesy/gamey... totally the downside of having "strong" units...

ajax_xaja wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
1) Am I right in reading that I can't take Valkyries in a Militarum Tempestus list without losing their regimental doctrines?

This was never responded to (a few pages back), and I had a similar questions about Bullgryns that didn't seem to receive any consensus. Gonna bump this topic a bit, because 1d4chan now states that ONLY scions, taurox primes, and tempestors are allowed in order to get regimental doctrines.

I want to say that this can't be the case, but would love for someone to clarify or get a solid answer from GW. Similarly, would this affect the ability to use tempestus stratagems as well?

Lastly, I was looking forward to buying/building out an all tempestus army at the beginning of 8th...but it's now established as being extremely cheesy/gamey... totally the downside of having "strong" units...

I think the rule intention is quite clear, although the wording can be read as ambiguous. The wordings on page 132 can be broken down thusly:

"...<REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment."

"...MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus..."

and under Advisors and Auxilla:

"The units listed below can be included in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine."

Now the only thing that really is causing a problem is the bracketed part in the first excerpt. It is not repeated in the second excerpt about Tempestus. However, I would argue that the next section about Auxilla will still apply. If you prevent doctrines by the inclusion of Auxilla, you are going directly against excerpt #3, which explicitly says that they do not prevent doctrines. On top of this, I would bet actual money that the intended effect is for Tempestus to be able to take Valkyries, as it is one of their key army builds. This is going to be in the first round of FAQs, as long as it comes onto GWs radar as an actual concern.

I got my book yesterday. Very exciting. I also got a message from my normal purveyor of plastic that GW is putting the snap fit cadians out to pasture.

For some reason I really like the idea of crusaders, with a priest they look like they can kick some serious MEQ butt. Especially if they get a charge off. They've got a 3+ invulnerable save, 2 attacks, and power swords. With their special ability they can haul ass on anything but a 1, moving an extra 6" per turn.

And technically, RAW you can give the Dagger Relic to the Priest, and he can choose the crusaders to accompany him on his flanking, since neither have a Regiment (or their Regiment is Adeptus Minostorum possibly)

And then you could give them the "TAKE COVER" stratagem to upgrade their save to a 2+ (it doesn't save armor save, so it looks like it applies to both?) when the enemy inevitable tries to shoot them off the table.

If he tries to CC them, you can use your acts of Faith to fight twice in your turn. And you'll be getting 3 attacks per Crusader (assuming the priest survives). Sure they're strength 3, but they're also -3 to armor save! These guys seem overall like a great counter to any enemy army's blender CC units.

I'm absolutely going to convert up a unit of 10! Only question is, what to use?

I'm thinking a box of skitarri torsos, on cadian legs, wielding some old Empire swords and shields I've got in my bits box with Empire Knight heads (yay for bits box!)

 Trickstick wrote:

ajax_xaja wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
1) Am I right in reading that I can't take Valkyries in a Militarum Tempestus list without losing their regimental doctrines?

This was never responded to (a few pages back), and I had a similar questions about Bullgryns that didn't seem to receive any consensus. Gonna bump this topic a bit, because 1d4chan now states that ONLY scions, taurox primes, and tempestors are allowed in order to get regimental doctrines.

I want to say that this can't be the case, but would love for someone to clarify or get a solid answer from GW. Similarly, would this affect the ability to use tempestus stratagems as well?

Lastly, I was looking forward to buying/building out an all tempestus army at the beginning of 8th...but it's now established as being extremely cheesy/gamey... totally the downside of having "strong" units...

I think the rule intention is quite clear, although the wording can be read as ambiguous. The wordings on page 132 can be broken down thusly:

"...<REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment."

"...MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus..."

and under Advisors and Auxilla:

"The units listed below can be included in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine."

Now the only thing that really is causing a problem is the bracketed part in the first excerpt. It is not repeated in the second excerpt about Tempestus. However, I would argue that the next section about Auxilla will still apply. If you prevent doctrines by the inclusion of Auxilla, you are going directly against excerpt #3, which explicitly says that they do not prevent doctrines. On top of this, I would bet actual money that the intended effect is for Tempestus to be able to take Valkyries, as it is one of their key army builds. This is going to be in the first round of FAQs, as long as it comes onto GWs radar as an actual concern.

Thanks very much... I'm really happy with this answer, it seems to break this down pretty well. I had pretty much the same feeling about Valkyries, seeing as how they're so ingrained in the lore. Really hoping GW pushes an FAQ for this one.

Semi-related, are we at the point where plasma spam can be eased, and where meltas are going to be more widely considered? Plasma is still great for MEQ/TEQ/Primaris elimination, but I want to say that meltas are going to be king for vehicle removal going forward.

 argonak wrote:
I got my book yesterday. Very exciting. I also got a message from my normal purveyor of plastic that GW is putting the snap fit cadians out to pasture.

That would be disappointing, while having a dozen vehicles and Scions squads I only have 12 guard models and I'm trying to work out most cost efficient way to expand my options with a conscript squad and another two well equiped infantry squad, particularly as you only get one melta and plasma in each posable set. I also fancy having a Command Squad of snipers with a medikit as an alternative to Ratlings and issuing them the reroll wounds order each turn.

ajax_xaja wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

ajax_xaja wrote:

tag8833 wrote:
1) Am I right in reading that I can't take Valkyries in a Militarum Tempestus list without losing their regimental doctrines?

This was never responded to (a few pages back), and I had a similar questions about Bullgryns that didn't seem to receive any consensus. Gonna bump this topic a bit, because 1d4chan now states that ONLY scions, taurox primes, and tempestors are allowed in order to get regimental doctrines.

I want to say that this can't be the case, but would love for someone to clarify or get a solid answer from GW. Similarly, would this affect the ability to use tempestus stratagems as well?

Lastly, I was looking forward to buying/building out an all tempestus army at the beginning of 8th...but it's now established as being extremely cheesy/gamey... totally the downside of having "strong" units...

I think the rule intention is quite clear, although the wording can be read as ambiguous. The wordings on page 132 can be broken down thusly:

"...<REGIMENT> units in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment (excluding those in Super-heavy Auxiliary Detachments) gain a Regimental Doctrine, so long as every unit in that Detachment (apart from the exceptions noted opposite) is drawn from the same regiment."

"...MILITARUM TEMPESTUS units do not themselves benefit from any Regimental Doctrine unless every unit in that Detachment is from the Militarum Tempestus..."

and under Advisors and Auxilla:

"The units listed below can be included in an ASTRA MILITARUM Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from gaining a Regimental Doctrine."

Now the only thing that really is causing a problem is the bracketed part in the first excerpt. It is not repeated in the second excerpt about Tempestus. However, I would argue that the next section about Auxilla will still apply. If you prevent doctrines by the inclusion of Auxilla, you are going directly against excerpt #3, which explicitly says that they do not prevent doctrines. On top of this, I would bet actual money that the intended effect is for Tempestus to be able to take Valkyries, as it is one of their key army builds. This is going to be in the first round of FAQs, as long as it comes onto GWs radar as an actual concern.

Thanks very much... I'm really happy with this answer, it seems to break this down pretty well. I had pretty much the same feeling about Valkyries, seeing as how they're so ingrained in the lore. Really hoping GW pushes an FAQ for this one.

Semi-related, are we at the point where plasma spam (in the context of scions) can be eased, and where meltas are going to be more widely considered? Plasma is still great for MEQ/TEQ/Primaris elimination, but I want to say that meltas are going to be king for vehicle removal going forward now that plasmas actually cost more.

Even at 13 points per gun, Plasma still beats Melta for average damage.

You get 8 plasma shots with D2, versus 4 melta shots D6. If all shots hit and wound, plasma gets 16 every time, while 4 melta average 14, with a 4-24 swing..

And its a difference of 4 points total. Plasma is also strong against a wider variety of targets. I'd take versatility and reliability over that swing any day, even for 4 more points. Melta does have that one more point of AP though, so that's something in its favor. There's no reason you can do a split either, and bring 3 plasma and 1 melta.

Melta only beats Plasma if you can get into half range. So really only if you put them on veterans in a Valkyrie. Because putting Scions in a Valkyrie is wasting your grav chut ability.

If you're playing with index too, you can also put melta on rough riders, which honestly looks like a pretty good option, although I haven't tried it.

Ever any point to hot-shot volley guns?

Volley guns are cheap and the best stand and shoot gun for taking out infantry. They give the Scions a weapon that they can use when defending. Sure, that is not really their roll in a standard list but it can be useful in certain scenarios or if you are running a pure Tempestus list.

Razerous wrote:
Ever any point to hot-shot volley guns?

I found 4 of them in a 10 man stormtrooper squad tends to scare marines pretty good. I think they believe Im running them stock and thats just how many lasgun shots they get normally. Tricks noobs but other than that its basically just for clearing enemy infantry. Might help with clearing scouts or guardsmen off an objective though. I just like it because its a different weapon and essentially lets me FRFSRF from deepstrike.

Oh yeah and they would get the 6+ extra shots when within 12", thats pretty nice too. Rolling that many dice youre bound to get a few 6's.

 argonak wrote:

For some reason I really like the idea of crusaders, with a priest they look like they can kick some serious MEQ butt. Especially if they get a charge off. They've got a 3+ invulnerable save, 2 attacks, and power swords. With their special ability they can haul ass on anything but a 1, moving an extra 6" per turn.

And technically, RAW you can give the Dagger Relic to the Priest, and he can choose the crusaders to accompany him on his flanking, since neither have a Regiment (or their Regiment is Adeptus Minostorum possibly)

And then you could give them the "TAKE COVER" stratagem to upgrade their save to a 2+ (it doesn't save armor save, so it looks like it applies to both?) when the enemy inevitable tries to shoot them off the table.

If he tries to CC them, you can use your acts of Faith to fight twice in your turn. And you'll be getting 3 attacks per Crusader (assuming the priest survives). Sure they're strength 3, but they're also -3 to armor save! These guys seem overall like a great counter to any enemy army's blender CC units.

I'm absolutely going to convert up a unit of 10! Only question is, what to use?

I'm thinking a box of skitarri torsos, on cadian legs, wielding some old Empire swords and shields I've got in my bits box with Empire Knight heads (yay for bits box!)

If only they could get the Catachan regiment strength bonus! Gah! I like your idea for converting them up. I don't have swords and Shields laying about. I wonder how easily skitarri torsos and capes fit on Cadian legs ... Anybody else have any ideas on how to convert these guys up? I think them and a couple Bullgryn would be a super fun combo.

 Colonel Cross wrote:

 argonak wrote:

For some reason I really like the idea of crusaders, with a priest they look like they can kick some serious MEQ butt. Especially if they get a charge off. They've got a 3+ invulnerable save, 2 attacks, and power swords. With their special ability they can haul ass on anything but a 1, moving an extra 6" per turn.

And technically, RAW you can give the Dagger Relic to the Priest, and he can choose the crusaders to accompany him on his flanking, since neither have a Regiment (or their Regiment is Adeptus Minostorum possibly)

And then you could give them the "TAKE COVER" stratagem to upgrade their save to a 2+ (it doesn't save armor save, so it looks like it applies to both?) when the enemy inevitable tries to shoot them off the table.

If he tries to CC them, you can use your acts of Faith to fight twice in your turn. And you'll be getting 3 attacks per Crusader (assuming the priest survives). Sure they're strength 3, but they're also -3 to armor save! These guys seem overall like a great counter to any enemy army's blender CC units.

I'm absolutely going to convert up a unit of 10! Only question is, what to use?

I'm thinking a box of skitarri torsos, on cadian legs, wielding some old Empire swords and shields I've got in my bits box with Empire Knight heads (yay for bits box!)

If only they could get the Catachan regiment strength bonus! Gah! I like your idea for converting them up. I don't have swords and Shields laying about. I wonder how easily skitarri torsos and capes fit on Cadian legs ... Anybody else have any ideas on how to convert these guys up? I think them and a couple Bullgryn would be a super fun combo.

The only issue with the Skitarii, looking at the sprue, is that the front chest piece has a huge AM logo on it. Which is kinda meh. I don't like the GSC outfits for crusaders either. I'm going to convert up just a normal Cadian wearing my old bits and see how that looks, before I pick up a Skitarri and GSC box to see what those can do.

Some of theo old Empire stuff would also probably be a natural fit as well. Depending on what GW still sells.

edit: Vanguard bits look really good. Removing the AM logos and putting on some eagles or a normal skull might be a good bet actually.

I've been thinking a lot about Creed, and what he brings vs. what you give up. I'm not sure he's an auto-take, even if you are running infantry heavy Cadians. Here's why: while he gets a lot for his points (third order, 12" order range, 2 CP, and the Warlord Trait that gives a bonus order on a 4+), he averages only a half order per turn more than two Company Commanders (which can help fill out detachments). Also, his trait precludes taking Grand Strategist, and farming CPs off of your stratagems. Depending on how many CPs you start with, you might end up with more from GS than from Creed's bonus, and GS also gives you a bonus re-roll to hit/wound/save. As few as six CPs will net you as many "bonus" CPs as Creed gives, and if you rock a brigade, a warlord with GS will bring in on average 4 bonus CPs. Keeping in mind that you can always buy orders on a cheap HQs, or even with CPs if needed, I'd avoid Creed and go with GS in any larger games.

It's pretty simple to build a Brigade with IG, and even very possible to run both a brigade and either a Spearhead or Supreme Command (for the lord of war), and either way you're looking at needing 4-6 HQ choices. I'd rather buy my orders at retail, and have more CPs to spend than have once super efficient order machine.

If you play where you pick warlord traits each game, then also keep in mind that there are some corner case traits which can be huge with a gunline. For example, Old Grudges can make a lot of your army more efficient against the toughest enemy unit, which can be nice when facing a Demon Primarch or superheavy.

That's kind of what I've been leaning towards as well. Good breakdown of the analysis.

I don't know if this has been stated yet. But Dagger Relic on Punisher w/ HB Tank Commander with a Bullgryn Melee squad turn 1 Reserve deploy and assault. Thoughts?

 argonak wrote:
Even at 13 points per gun, Plasma still beats Melta for average damage.

You get 8 plasma shots with D2, versus 4 melta shots D6. If all shots hit and wound, plasma gets 16 every time, while 4 melta average 14, with a 4-24 swing..

And its a difference of 4 points total. Plasma is also strong against a wider variety of targets. I'd take versatility and reliability over that swing any day, even for 4 more points. Melta does have that one more point of AP though, so that's something in its favor. There's no reason you can do a split either, and bring 3 plasma and 1 melta.

Melta only beats Plasma if you can get into half range. So really only if you put them on veterans in a Valkyrie. Because putting Scions in a Valkyrie is wasting your grav chut ability.

If you're playing with index too, you can also put melta on rough riders, which honestly looks like a pretty good option, although I haven't tried it.

Thanks for crunching the numbers, awesome analysis. So if I'm taking plenty of plasmas, what do you think should go on my taurox primes? Obviously the gatling cannons are fun for anti infantry clear, but would you lean battle cannon or missile rack between the two? Not really sure how common T8 is, but I'm liking the versatility of the missile launchers to switch between anti-horde or armor, even though they're coming in at 22 points more.