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.

Which Regiment do you prefer for an armoured / mechanised list? I'm really torn between Tallarn and Steel Legion...

Jkbulldogg wrote:
How many of yall run Super Heavies in a 2,000 pt list? I have an idea of running a mixed Tallarn infantry/Russ brigade with a Stormlord. 4 sponsons seems like a TON of points though.

But for the 4 sponsons you are effectively getting the damage output of another stormlord.

My 4 sponson'd shadowsword is a staple feature of my 2k list; when taking 3 would be considered improper in a pick up game.

 Fishborne wrote:
What are peoples thoughts on the other warlord traits?

Grand Strategist - Probably the 'default' trait. However, I think I'd only take it if I was starting with a lot of CPs to begin with (using Brigades/Battalions or such). If I was just using 1-2 Spearhead detachments (for a Leman Russ army) or Vanguard detachments (for a Veteran/SWS army), I'd probably consider using something else. Maybe it would still be worth it, but I'd at least consider the others.

Old Grudges - Useful if your opponent has a super-heavy or such. Probably wouldn't bother otherwise.

Implacable Determination - Might be useful in a Tallarn army. I was actually considering this on a Primaris Psyker, since they can cast after advancing and this would make them quite mobile (along with another unit each turn).

Draconian Discipline - Meh. On a Commissar or Lord Commissar this can kinda get the old ability back, at least with regard to Conscripts (for anything else, I think the cost would be too steep). However, it seems pretty poor in general and I think we have better options for making Conscripts ignore morale.

Bellowing Voice - I can't see 3" making a huge difference, quite honestly. And given how cheap Company Commanders and such are, I think you can easily buy enough to give yourself good coverage to begin with. Pass.

Master of Command - On a Company Commander with the Laurels of Command or a Tank Commander, this could be worth considering. I wouldn't bother otherwise though.

Superior Tactical Training - Outside of maybe Creed, isn't this just a worse version of Master of Command? I guess it might combo to some degree with Laurels of Command, but I'm not fond of the double-randomness. I can't see myself taking this.

Lead from the Front, Honoured Duelist, Ex Gang Leader - I've grouped these together because they all amount to basically the same thing (making your warlord better in combat). They're probably not the sort of trait anyone would take in a tournament. However, I like their fluff and I'm sure many of us enjoy having our HQs heroically charge into combat now and again. So, whilst not tactically useful, I could definitely see myself taking these for a bit of fun.

Tenacious - Doesn't seem very useful to me. I don't think 5+ FNP will help much for a T3 character. You're probably better off buffing his offence and trying to kill the enemy before they kill him. And while a 6+ FNP might help a bit for a Leman Russ, I don't think it'll make enough of a difference to be worthwhile.

Swift Attacker - Eh? I really can't think of many circumstances where this would be useful, or even relevant. I guess if you have a really specific build?

Faithful Servant of the Throne - Are you kidding? Why would I ever need this when I can practically paper my walls with Astropaths?

Iron Discipline - Given the change to Commissars, this might actually be pretty decent now (though probably better for Infantry Squads and such than for Conscripts). I don't know if it's worth it over other abilities, but seems okay at least.

(Obviously this is based on the power of the respective traits. I can definitely see myself using many of the 'bad' ones because they fit the fluff of my army/leader.)

 vipoid wrote:

 Fishborne wrote:
What are peoples thoughts on the other warlord traits?

Grand Strategist - Probably the 'default' trait. However, I think I'd only take it if I was starting with a lot of CPs to begin with (using Brigades/Battalions or such). If I was just using 1-2 Spearhead detachments (for a Leman Russ army) or Vanguard detachments (for a Veteran/SWS army), I'd probably consider using something else. Maybe it would still be worth it, but I'd at least consider the others.

Old Grudges - Useful if your opponent has a super-heavy or such. Probably wouldn't bother otherwise.

Implacable Determination - Might be useful in a Tallarn army. I was actually considering this on a Primaris Psyker, since they can cast after advancing and this would make them quite mobile (along with another unit each turn).

Draconian Discipline - Meh. On a Commissar or Lord Commissar this can kinda get the old ability back, at least with regard to Conscripts (for anything else, I think the cost would be too steep). However, it seems pretty poor in general and I think we have better options for making Conscripts ignore morale.

Bellowing Voice - I can't see 3" making a huge difference, quite honestly. And given how cheap Company Commanders and such are, I think you can easily buy enough to give yourself good coverage to begin with. Pass.

Master of Command - On a Company Commander with the Laurels of Command or a Tank Commander, this could be worth considering. I wouldn't bother otherwise though.

Superior Tactical Training - Outside of maybe Creed, isn't this just a worse version of Master of Command? I guess it might combo to some degree with Laurels of Command, but I'm not fond of the double-randomness. I can't see myself taking this.

Lead from the Front, Honoured Duelist, Ex Gang Leader - I've grouped these together because they all amount to basically the same thing (making your warlord better in combat). They're probably not the sort of trait anyone would take in a tournament. However, I like their fluff and I'm sure many of us enjoy having our HQs heroically charge into combat now and again. So, whilst not tactically useful, I could definitely see myself taking these for a bit of fun.

Tenacious - Doesn't seem very useful to me. I don't think 5+ FNP will help much for a T3 character. You're probably better off buffing his offence and trying to kill the enemy before they kill him. And while a 6+ FNP might help a bit for a Leman Russ, I don't think it'll make enough of a difference to be worthwhile.

Swift Attacker - Eh? I really can't think of many circumstances where this would be useful, or even relevant. I guess if you have a really specific build?

Faithful Servant of the Throne - Are you kidding? Why would I ever need this when I can practically paper my walls with Astropaths?

Iron Discipline - Given the change to Commissars, this might actually be pretty decent now (though probably better for Infantry Squads and such than for Conscripts). I don't know if it's worth it over other abilities, but seems okay at least.

(Obviously this is based on the power of the respective traits. I can definitely see myself using many of the 'bad' ones because they fit the fluff of my army/leader.)

Old grudges is fantastic agaist deamon primarchs and they are more common than super heavies in the current meta.

Iron Discipline is interesting because it still works after the unit is wiped out by a failed morale test, and it doesn't matter how much they fail the morale test by.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Old grudges is fantastic agaist deamon primarchs and they are more common than super heavies in the current meta.

Yeah, I think of stuff like Primarchs as super-heavies, whether or not the rules describe them as such.

 vipoid wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
Old grudges is fantastic agaist deamon primarchs and they are more common than super heavies in the current meta.

Yeah, I think of stuff like Primarchs as super-heavies, whether or not the rules describe them as such.

Yarp. Plus this will help keep us around if death stars return to the meta.

What's everybody's preferred Baneblade variant? Or what do you guys think is generally the better one? My friend has a Stormsword he's selling and I was thinking of picking it up, but he has none of the extra bits or weapons for it anymore.

 Stus67 wrote:
What's everybody's preferred Baneblade variant? Or what do you guys think is generally the better one? My friend has a Stormsword he's selling and I was thinking of picking it up, but he has none of the extra bits or weapons for it anymore.

Other threads indicate it's the Shadowsword. I personally use the Stormlord because I also use it as a HWS bunker, but this is not as good of a configuration as it used to be.

Whichever is best depends on what you want to use it for they all have a niche, generally top three are Baneblade as best all rounder, Shadowsword best tank killer, Stormlord best troop transport while still being decent anti infantry. The Stormsword is a short range anti fortification specialist as its weapon ignores cover and it rerolls wounds. Its a Derper with high damage output and a gun strong enough to reliably wound vehicles or other high save targets but its very short range meaning it has to close within range of all your opponents anti tank infantry weapons whereas the other variants (apart from near identical Hellhammer which is its anti-infantry twin) like to sit at the back and snipe.

That shadow sword is a nightmare for armor. One shots a landraider in one shot, and almost one shots a knight as well.

Volcano cannon is a volcano

Hi, I do not have the new codex. I was wondering how easy can IG spam smite? Is it a cheap hq choise, or a cheap elite choise?

 Niiai wrote:
Hi, I do not have the new codex. I was wondering how easy can IG spam smite? Is it a cheap hq choise, or a cheap elite choise?

Both.

(Though, admittedly, the Elite choice only rolls 1d6 for Smite.)

 Niiai wrote:
Hi, I do not have the new codex. I was wondering how easy can IG spam smite? Is it a cheap hq choise, or a cheap elite choise?

Cheap HQ 40 points but astropaths are 15 points in elite but only roll one dice

Resipsa131 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Hi, I do not have the new codex. I was wondering how easy can IG spam smite? Is it a cheap hq choise, or a cheap elite choise?

Cheap HQ 40 points but astropaths are 15 points in elite but only roll one dice

Actually I believe it's 21 bolt pistols with the stave. I'm starting to seriously look into 2 primaris psykers with a conscript blob. the psykers get to know 2 powers each plus smite. They should be able to keep the blob alive long enough to get into smite range

Or even better - ambush them if I'm allowed.

 necron99 wrote:

Resipsa131 wrote:

 Niiai wrote:
Hi, I do not have the new codex. I was wondering how easy can IG spam smite? Is it a cheap hq choise, or a cheap elite choise?

Cheap HQ 40 points but astropaths are 15 points in elite but only roll one dice

Actually I believe it's 21 bolt pistols with the stave.

Yeah, that's why no one ever takes the stave.

I'm slowly gravitating to the Baneblade as SHT of choice; the reliability of the main gun has shone consistently, especially in overwatch.

I'm also of the opinion that whilst rerolling 1s is nice for Cadian SHTs, Valhallan trait is better as it means the damage output over the whole game is consistent, instead of spiking turn one and degrading constantly.

Losing Overlapping Fire does hurt, but i'm starting to see a case that overlapping fire on SHTS is wasted *anyway*.

Thoughts?

 malamis wrote:
I'm slowly gravitating to the Baneblade as SHT of choice; the reliability of the main gun has shone consistently, especially in overwatch.

I'm also of the opinion that whilst rerolling 1s is nice for Cadian SHTs, Valhallan trait is better as it means the damage output over the whole game is consistent, instead of spiking turn one and degrading constantly.

Losing Overlapping Fire does hurt, but i'm starting to see a case that overlapping fire on SHTS is wasted *anyway*.

Thoughts?

Well, as a superheavy tank player, the Baneblade is certainly good for reliability. The Stormsword is too - it gets 1 fewer d6 of damage, but wounds everything on 3+ (including space marine superheavies), T5 on 2+, ignores 3+ armour outright, ignores cover outright, and re-rolls 1s for damage dice. That's some neat reliability and makes it a better tank destroyer than the Baneblade. It's also cheaper - losing the Demolisher Cannon and autocannon essentially buys you the first set of sponsons for free. So a Stormsword with 4 sponsons (and therefore 4 lascannons and 30 heavy bolter dice) is essentially the same price as a Baneblade with only 2 sponsons.

As for regimental doctrine - meh on everything except Mordian and Catachan. I always take an Atlas and / or Trojan with the superheavy, so there's always a Vehicle within 3" for the trait. Since the vehicle can never be stopped from firing overwatch except by very specific abilities, overwatching every single unit that charges it on a 4+ is hilarious - it's essentially a free shooting phase.

Catachan gets you that sweet sweet main armament shots re-roll.

Valhallan seems good, but the problem is that most people focus the superheavy to death if they shoot at it at all. I know very few players that slowly plink away at a superheavy with a few things a turn. Either it's fine, or it's essentially wiped out. Having an Atlas or Techpriest (or hilariously, both, since they stack) can mitigate this problem a bit.

The Valhallan trait really seems to depend on where you play. I would imagine more competitive aeas don't get as much use out of it, but at the same time you see people online talk about just wounding tanks enough to degrade them then moving onto the next. In my area for example I tend to end up with tanks at very low wounds quite a bit, so the trait helps me a lot. Means people need to actually kill my tanks, not just whittle them down a bit.

I'd say take a look at what's going on in your area and go from there. IG tanks like Leman Russe's degrade surprisingly quickly and in my experience I've often found I would have preferred a little bit slower damage output but continue hitting on 4's, than say rerolling shots/1's but hitting on 5's and 6's. That said, I'm no tourney player and I predominantly run infantry. Tanks are support in my army and mainly meant as a distraction, so anything that keeps them a threat helps me out a lot. You may find with a tank force the extra firepower makes the Valhallan trait a non issue as you just don't take as many hits.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
The Valhallan trait really seems to depend on where you play. I would imagine more competitive aeas don't get as much use out of it, but at the same time you see people online talk about just wounding tanks enough to degrade them then moving onto the next. In my area for example I tend to end up with tanks at very low wounds quite a bit, so the trait helps me a lot. Means people need to actually kill my tanks, not just whittle them down a bit.

I'd say take a look at what's going on in your area and go from there. IG tanks like Leman Russe's degrade surprisingly quickly and in my experience I've often found I would have preferred a little bit slower damage output but continue hitting on 4's, than say rerolling shots/1's but hitting on 5's and 6's. That said, I'm no tourney player and I predominantly run infantry. Tanks are support in my army and mainly meant as a distraction, so anything that keeps them a threat helps me out a lot. You may find with a tank force the extra firepower makes the Valhallan trait a non issue as you just don't take as many hits.

My go-to strategy to counter SHT's prior to codex was to do just that. Do one Leman Russ' worth of damage to it and ignore it until I had nothing better to shoot. It forced the SHT to stand still or hit on 6's, essentially immobilizing it.

The difference is now with all the repair options to the IG (a stratagem, a d3 from an Enginseer and a d3 from an Atlas), you could see a Baneblade springing up 7 wounds in one turn. Personally, I think this is an overinvestment, but it happens.

This means that it must absolutely be killed, or else it'll just be back in action relatively quickly.

I do not understand. There is a smiter as an HQ and one as an elite? But the HQ smites 1d3 and the elite smite 1d6? And they cost 40 and 15 points? That sounds absurd.

 Niiai wrote:
I do not understand. There is a smiter as an HQ and one as an elite? But the HQ smites 1d3 and the elite smite 1d6? And they cost 40 and 15 points? That sounds absurd.

No no, the elites only roll 1d6 to cast smite. So they only get it on a 5+ on 1d6, rather than a 5+ on 2d6.

That's why astropaths are better served as utility and emperors gaze and maelstrom

Resipsa131 wrote:
That's why astropaths are better served as utility and emperors gaze and maelstrom

On the other hand, they can never perils when casting Smite.

Just had first game with my Catachans versus primaris smurfs 1165pts.
Hellhounds were awesome but he didn't have any AT other than hellblasters.
Wyverns are meh vs marines but i believe everyone knew that. Catachan re-roll is awesome, can't wait on getting a basilisk.
Between orders and stratagems this codex is a lot of fun.

So question.... how viable would a catachan close combat army be? Could it be done?

It can be done. Question is is it any good. I'm pretty sure that's a no.

gendoikari87 wrote:
So question.... how viable would a catachan close combat army be? Could it be done?

A purely "charge forward and stab everything" list? Probably not.

The tools to make catachans scary in close combat though are cheap and easy to use, so it doesn't hurt you too much to bring them. In that case I would use them in a counterattack role when the enemy gets close. In that kind of situation they would shine, as they still shoot pretty well and can CQC in a pinch.

gendoikari87 wrote:
So question.... how viable would a catachan close combat army be? Could it be done?

As in charge the enemy? No. The best parts of catachan melee (like vicious traps and flamer rerolls) are defensive in nature. Better is to use a bunch of tanks/artillery to force the opponent to come to you. I do deploy my infantry with the intention of getting it into melee, but only charge if I have to. Better to hole up in a building, shoot them if they refuse to charge and then counterattack mercilessly if they do. I have shredded chaos cultist groups with catachans + viscious traps+ministorum priests. Anything T3 is fair game, really.

Catachan are pretty good in melee, but they don't have anything to ensure they get the charge distance like tyranids or chaos.

All my IG armies thus far have included no psykers whatsoever. However, that's about to change drastically, so I'm looking for a bit of advice regarding our psychic powers.

For reference, my army is likely to include:
1-3 Primaris Psykers
3 Astropaths
3 Inquisitors

Anyway, my main questions are:

1) How do you rate our psychic powers?

2) Are there some powers that it's better for an Astropath to know (as opposed to a Primaris Psyker), or vice versa?

3) With multiple Psykers, is it better to have an even selection of powers, or should I lean towards redundancy with the 'good' powers?

4) Lastly, does anyone know whether the IG Mental Fortitude counts as the same power as the Inquisition Mental Fortitude? I ask because you can only cast each power once per turn. However, in this case, the powers have the same name but different wording (one affects any Imperium unit, the other only affects IG units), does that matter?